Economic and Social Conditions in France
During the Eighteenth Century
Henri Sée
Professor at the University of Rennes
Translated by Edwin H. Zeydel
Batoche Books
Kitchener
2004
Originally Published 1927
Translation of La France Économique et Sociale Au XVIIIe Siècle
This edition 2004
Batoche Books
batoche@gto.net
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 5
Chapter 1: Land Property; its Distribution. The Population of France ........................ 10
Chapter 2: The Peasants and Agriculture ..................................................................... 17
Chapter 3: The Clergy .................................................................................................. 38
Chapter 4: The Nobility ................................................................................................ 50
Chapter 5: Parliamentary Nobility and Administrative Nobility .................................... 65
Chapter 6: Petty Industry. The Trades and Guilds ....................................................... 69
Chapter 7: Commercial Development in the Eighteenth Century ................................. 77
Chapter 8: Industrial Development in the Eighteenth Century ...................................... 86
Chapter 9: The Classes of Workmen and Merchants................................................... 95
Chapter 10: The Financiers ........................................................................................ 103
Chapter 11: High and Middle Bourgeoisie ................................................................. 107
Introduction
I
If we would arrive at a true understanding of the nature of contemporary society, we
must first get a picture of the economic and social life of France in former times, especially in the eighteenth century. Indeed, there is no more instructive method than the
comparative, for it clearly reveals the similarities and, in particular, the contrasts.
Although only one hundred and fifty years—a brief period in the history of humanity—separate us from the era which we propose to study, it seems at first glance that the
France of today bears very little resemblance to the France of Louis XVI. This is readily
explained. In the intervening years the ancien régime was overthrown and the Revolution
transformed all political and social institutions. Then, too, a profound economic revolution, in the nineteenth century, affecting France as well as all other countries, has altered
the conditions of our material existence and our whole mode of life.
One fact which strikes us at the very outset is that the Revolution overturned all the
old legal institutions. In eighteenth century France the social classes, as we conceive
them today, can be detected only by an attentive observer of the realities of economic
life. The superficial student sees merely the legal distinctions. Three estates can be discerned—the clergy, the nobility, and the third estate. Between them rise the barriers of
secular privileges.
The privileges of the clergy and nobility constitute one of the characteristic features
of eighteenth century society. Clergy and nobility exercised a preeminent right over all
land property. The manorial dues of various kinds that they imposed upon the peasants
who tilled the soil formed one of their chief sources of revenue. Clergy and nobility thus
evaded most of the taxes and financial burdens that fell upon the popular classes and
6 / Henri Sée
tended to increase their misery. Finally, most of the functions of the state were the prerogative of the privileged classes, especially of the nobility. Hence it is easy to understand why one of the great demands of the third estate in 1789 was precisely the participation of all classes in all duties and functions.
It is true that the ecclesiastical offices, in theory at least, seemed accessible to the
commoners as well as the nobles; but in reality all the dignities of the high clergy, the
episcopal sees, the abbeys, and the rich ecclesiastical benefits, were reserved to members of the nobility, especially the court nobility, to an increasingly exclusive extent as we
approach the Revolution.
The legal barriers separating the various classes became greater and greater as the
ancien régime neared its end. We shall see later that the breach became ever wider
between the nobles and the commoners. The nobility, although continuing to be recruited
from the class of newly rich at least from the world of finance, tended to become a
closed caste. The revision of the titles of nobility (reformations de la noblesse), achieved
during the time of Louis XIV, did not, to be sure, consist primarily of fiscal measures, yet
it cut off from the nobility families of recent extraction, especially those continuing to
devote themselves to commerce, or noblemen too poor to assert their rights.
II
And yet the eighteenth century prepared the way for the profound transformations that
were destined to characterize our own era and to change the aspect of the entire social
world. Capitalism, in its commercial form at least, already loomed as a power and began
to exert a great influence upon industry itself. The merchants, “controlling” rural industry
more and more actively, opened the way for great capitalist industry. In the urban trades,
at least in the textile trades, they often succeeded also in bringing under their economic
domination the workmen who, formerly independent, now became salaried employees.
The old labor organization no longer answered the new needs. At the close of the century, even after the failure of Turgot’s reform, the trade guilds were doomed.
The introduction of machinery, at first restricted to a few industries, especially cotton-spinning, as well as industrial concentration, manifested in certain centers of the
clothing industry and in the manufacture of prints, point also to the new era.
But this was only the beginning. On the whole, the old economic practises were still
adhered to. In spite of progress in road building, the avenues of communication remained insufficient. The means of transportation had been changed, but not appreciably
transformed, since the beginning of modern times. Maritime commerce had made great
strides in the eighteenth century, and had greatly increased the national wealth; but navigation had scarcely changed since the seventeenth century. Tonnage remained small, and
there was hardly a vessel of more than 400 or 500 tons.
Is it not significant that among the third estate of most of the cities, first place was
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 7
occupied by lawyers, both advocates and attorneys, or by financiers, namely employees
of the general farm or collectors of the royal taxes? Only in the larger ports did the
merchants play an important rôle.
In short, for any one studying economic evolution, the great transformations did not
come until the following century. France under the new monarchy, until the approach of
1848, still preserved most of the characteristics of the ancien régime.
III
Finally one permanent trait of the economic and social history of France was strikingly
revealed in the eighteenth century. This was the strengthening and perpetuation of the
system of peasant ownership. It is well known that this ownership was gradually established during the Middle Ages under the guise of feudal tenure. The peasants, from the
beginning of the Middle Ages, were completely freed from servitude in most parts of
France and came to own the land they cultivated, with the right to will it to heirs, or to sell
or exchange it. This property, however, was burdened with dues imposed by the manorial system, made particularly irksome because of the latter’s practices and abuses. And
yet there is reason to believe that the continuation of the manorial system up to the
Revolution helped toward the consolidation of peasant ownership. This seems to us all
the more plausible if we reflect that in England, where the manorial system was considerably weakened toward the end of the Middle Ages, peasant ownership was ultimately
eliminated almost altogether in favor of the landed aristocracy.
However that may be, it will suffice for our purposes to observe that the Revolution
radically abolished the manorial system, making peasant ownership completely autonomous. Not that all the peasants became property owners, for many owned little or no
land and constituted a veritable rural proletariat; but they comprised probably only a
minority among the rural population. At any rate, the agrarian system of France has a
profoundly original character, which distinguishes it from that of most of the other European countries. This is true to such an extent that even in our own day France has
remained a type of rural democracy. In Western Europe it is the only great state in which
the equilibrium is not disturbed in favor of industrial development. In this respect the
present is closely related to the past.
The condition of land property, as it existed in the eighteenth century, also explains
why in France the progress of agriculture was much slower than in countries where the
landed aristocracy eliminated peasant ownership. France was also the country of land
cultivation on a small scale. The proprietors, whether they belonged to the nobility or to
the bourgeoisie, did not personally engage in cultivation. The peasants themselves cultivated all the land; but their resources were too small to permit them to take advantage of
real agricultural improvements. They adhered to the old methods, and these tended toward the maintenance of the moors and meadows, the joint use of which was regarded as
8 / Henri Sée
absolutely necessary for the requirements of the peasant masses. The great clearings
could not, in spite of some notable efforts, prove practicable. Uncultivated lands could
be used only with partial success. In short, the new system of rural economy did not
really triumph until the second half of the nineteenth century. Until about 1840 French
agriculture still bore a close resemblance to that of the ancien régime.
We see, then, that the economic life of the eighteenth century was destined to extend
beyond the Great Revolution. The latter effected above all the abolition of the legal prerogatives which separated the third estate from the privileged classes. This abolition gradually
had an effect upon the economic development itself. It helped, though to a smaller degree than the progress of capitalism, to bring about a new division of the social classes,
based upon the economic rôle that they played. On the other hand, the application of
science to industry, which began in the eighteenth century, the triumph of steam, followed by that of electricity, and the revolution effected by the new means of transportation (railways and steamships) tended to overcome the ways and means of the ancien
régime and to transform all the conditions of material life.
These are the reasons why the eighteenth century seems to us of today so remote.
And yet it is in fact very close to us, if we consider that everything which touches contemporary life had its beginnings in that period. Furthermore, in the history of France,
especially from the economic and social point of view, there are permanent characteristics which give the country a very special aspect—characteristics no less important than
the nature of the soil and the topography of the land. Thus we may explain a phenomenon
which seems a paradox, namely, that in the country which several times has given the
signal for revolution to a great part of Europe, the present is related perhaps more closely
to the past than is the case in countries where a much more conservative attitude has
prevailed.
IV
A few words are necessary to explain the plan which we have followed and which might,
at first glance, surprise the reader.
Usually, in dealing with the history of French society, a classification based upon
legal considerations is adopted. Distinction is made between the three estates, the clergy
and nobility, as the privileged classes, and the common people, classed under the single
head of “the third estate.”
This classification has the grave defect of not being based upon economic life,
which is the determining factor in the condition of the social classes. Let us take, for
example, the third estate. It comprises various classes, in reality quite distinct, namely,
the high bourgeoisie (lawyers, officeholders, and financiers), merchants and tradesmen,
artisans and laborers, and finally the peasants.
Although we find the legal distinctions still exerting a great influence upon the social
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 9
state in the eighteenth century, it seems more rational for us to base our classification
upon the various forms of property, and to distinguish essentially between the classes
that directly or indirectly live from land property, from rural economy, and those that
derive their subsistence from urban economy, from personal property, from commercial
and industrial activity. And since economic phenomena and social facts influence one
another not a little, we shall always keep the two types of problems, in reality inseparable,
before us with that in mind.
In dealing with a subject which learned research has just barely begun to consider,
and in which generalizations, still seem rather premature, the writer should be able to give
references for each step. But the nature of this work precluded such a practise. In each
chapter, however, there have been indicated the essential works which will make it possible for the reader gradually to familiarize himself with the questions of which only a
superficial survey could here be given.
Chapter 1: Land Property; its Distribution. The Population of
France
First we shall describe the classes that live from real property, that is, land, either by
deriving their resources from agricultural labor (the peasants), or by living from the exploitation of the peasants, in other words, from the revenues which the peasants are
obliged to furnish those who are the eminent proprietors of the soil, namely, the clergy
and the nobility.
The first step, then, is to get an idea of the apportionment of property among these
three social classes. Doubtless we cannot secure precise statistics. We can only, by
virtue of tax-lists and especially the rolls of twentieths (vingtièmes), which Loutchisky
has used, and also by virtue of the numerous land-records of the eighteenth century,
make computations that are, to be sure, merely approximate, yet throw light upon the
facts and are in accord with actual realities.
The figures that we shall quote have no absolute value. They can be criticised severely and may be modified by further investigations. On the other hand, since they are
based upon voluminous abstracts of tax-lists, the details of which Loutchisky was not
always able to give, it seems legitimate to use them. On the whole we believe they have a
real value, in spite of the criticisms directed against them.
The Property of the Privileged Classes
It appears that the nobility possessed an important part of the land, but a much smaller
amount than was usually believed. In his work “Etat des classes agricoles à la veille de la
Révolution” (Condition of the Agricultural Classes on the Eve of the Revolution)
Loutchisky arrives at the following conclusions: in Artois the nobility had 29 per cent of
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 11
the land; in Picardy 33 per cent; in Burgundy 35 per cent; in Limousin 15 per cent; in
Upper Auvergne 11 per cent; in Quercy 15 per cent; in Dauphiné 12 per cent; in Landes
22 per cent; in Béarn 20 per cent; in the section of Toulouse 28 per cent; in Roussillon 32
per cent; in Orléanais about 40 per cent. In Upper Brittany and Normandy and generally
in western France the holdings of the nobility seem to have been much more extensive
than in the other regions.
Contrary to what was long believed, the clergy owned infinitely less land than the
nobility. Northern France is an exception in this respect. Thus in Hainault and Cimbrésis
the clergy held 40 per cent of the property, and in Artois the ecclesiastical holdings
comprised one-fifth or one-fourth of the land, while in Laonnois these holdings amounted
to 29 per cent and in Picardy to 18 per cent. But the farther west or south we go, the
smaller the proportion grows, as the following table reveals:
Per cent
Burgundy
11 and 15
Berry
15
Touraine
10
Auvergne
3.5
Lower Limousin and Quercy
2
Section of Toulouse
4
Roussillon
2.5
Béarn
1.5
Landes
1
Section of Rennes
3.4
As for the total, we may agree with G. Lecarpentier, who ascribes to the clergy an
average of only 6 per cent of the land of France. The wealth of the clergy, as we shall see,
was due in great part to its urban holdings and the collection of tithes.
It should also be noted that a large proportion of the property of the nobility and the
clergy consisted of small forests and woods, and that these holdings were usually divided into small parcels— a fact which made agricultural exploitation on a large scale, in
accordance with the English practise, impossible. It is well to note that when we speak of
the property of the nobility and the clergy, we mean only the immediate land of the
manors (the so-called domaine proche) which was usually rented to farmers, or metayers,
farming on half profits. But the lords exercised also a right of eminent ownership over the
lands dependent upon their fiefs and especially upon the peasant tenures, for very few of
the latter were allodial, that is, completely autonomous.
12 / Henri Sée
Peasant Property
It is nevertheless true that the peasant tenures should be regarded as real hereditary property, since they were willed to heirs or could be transferred. They were merely encumbered by dues and taxes collected by the lord. Hence the peasants possessed a considerable part of the land, the proportion of which, however, varies in the different sections.
In the western provinces it seems smallest. Thus in Normandy, Brittany, and Poitou we
estimate it at only about one-fifth. In the north, in Picardy, in Artois, and in the region that
later formed the Département du Nord (Flanders, Hainault and Cambrésis), as well as in
Orléanais and Burgundy, it amounts to about one-third. In Languedoc and Limousin it is
one-half, and in Dauphiné it is two-fifths. In the second half of the eighteenth century,
peasant property, far from decreasing, seems to have undergone a notable increase in
certain regions. Loutchisky finds this true generally of Soissons, where the peasants
acquired four times as much land as they sold, as well as of Limousin, where from 1779
to 1791 they acquired an additional four thousand acres. Nevertheless Lefebvre thinks he
can prove that peasant holdings in the north hardly increased after 1770; only the number
of owners grew during the eighteenth century, no doubt as the result of inheritance.
However that may be, since the peasants constituted 90 per cent of the owners, their
holdings were often very small. The small size of the peasant holdings is an undeniable
fact and one of great importance.
Many peasants possessed only infinitesimal parcels of land, particularly in northern
France. Lefebvre proves that in Cambrésis from 60 to 70 per cent of the owners held less
than a hectare, and 20 per cent less than five hectares. But since at least five hectares are
necessary to support a family, most of the peasants had to find work as farmers or as
agricultural laborers. In Flanders, Cambrésis, and Hainault, as well as in Artois, Picardy,
and Normandy, and to a certain extent in Brittany, there was a veritable rural proletariat
which was reduced to misery by lack of work or poverty, and that explains the great
number of beggars and vagabonds. Owners of means and farmers on a large scale (often
called laboureurs) constituted only a small minority of the rural population. It was especially this class that, at the time of the Revolution, profited by the abolition of the manorial system and the sale of the national property.
The bourgeoisie, too, owned a considerable portion of the real property, especially
near the towns and larger cities, where there was a greater field for activity. In the north,
for example, from 16 to 17 per cent of the land was owned by the bourgeoisie.
This distribution of the real property which we have outlined gives France of the
eighteenth century a quite peculiar aspect. It distinguishes the country notably from England, where the great holdings of the nobility gradually did away with small peasant
holdings, because of the enclosures. It distinguishes France also from the greater part of
central Europe, and particularly from eastern Europe, where the large holdings of the
nobility continually extended and grew stronger in the course of modern times. This
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 13
phenomenon has given to French society an original character and has exercised a notable influence upon its entire historical development.
The agrarian development of England since the end of the Middle Ages shows us the
reasons why peasant ownership was preserved and strengthened in France. In Great
Britain the progress of the wool industry inspired the lords to transform cultivated lands
into pasturages and to increase their immediate domain by means of enclosures. And at
the same time the greater precariousness of the tenures, which had made itself felt since
the Middle Ages, as well as the weakening of the manorial system, facilitated this transformation. The British lords were not interested in maintaining the peasant tenures, which
netted them only small revenues. Finally the aristocracy, which had seized the political
power as a result of the revolutions during the seventeenth century, was free to take
possession of all the land. In France it was quite different. Commercial and industrial
capitalism was slower to develop and less intense. The lords were increasingly submitted
to the authority of the crown, which opposed excessive encroachments. Furthermore,
since they enjoyed extensive manorial rights that were often lucrative, the nobles did not
care to destroy the system of peasant tenures depending upon their fiefs. Thus small
peasant ownership perhaps owes its continued existence and its progress to the maintenance of the manorial system. And then, when the Revolution destroyed this system,
peasant ownership finally became fully autonomous.
The Population of France
Another element to be considered in studying the economic and social life of any period
is the population. It is very important to know its size and density, as well as the proportional relation of the urban to the rural population. Unfortunately, so far as the eighteenth
century is concerned, we possess only insufficient data and estimates of no scientific
value. Here or there a document gives us the number of households (feux), but it is hard
to determine whether the word feu here designates an actual household or a fiscal unit.
The figures given in the reports of the governors of the provinces about 1700 are merely
approximate. Only after 1770 did the government call for marriage, birth, and death
statistics, according to the parish registers. Turgot even proposed the compilation of real
statistics on population.
According to these “movements of population,” Necker in his “Administration des
finances” (Administration of Finances) of 1784 estimated the population of France at
twenty-four millions, while Galonné in his “L’état de la population du royaume” (Status
of the Population of the Kingdom), presented to the Assembly of Notables in 1787,
placed it at twenty-three millions. According to these documents, the total population of
the cities hardly exceeded two millions, and the provinces possessed only a single city in
excess of 100,000 inhabitants, namely Lyons (135,000). The great ports, such as Marseilles, Bordeaux, Nantes, and Rouen, were among the most populous. But most of the
14 / Henri Sée
urban centers had less than 20,000 inhabitants. Capitals such as Dijon and Grenoble
would, with their 21,000 and 23,000 inhabitants, respectively, be considered very small
cities today. Finally the movement of population shows that the population increased
perceptibly at the end of the ancien régime, except in Brittany. Another interesting fact is
the high birth rate, counterbalanced, however, by a high general mortality which can be
explained by frequent epidemics and also by an enormous infant mortality. At all events,
in 1789 France was one of the most densely populated countries of Europe, much more
so than England or Germany. This explains in part the rôle that it played during the
period.
When we consider the elements of the population we find that it was very stable.
Emigration hardly existed. It is true that the revocation of the Edict of Nantes at the end
of the seventeenth century exiled about 100,000 Protestants, almost all inhabitants of the
cities and belonging to the industrial and commercial classes; for the Huguenot peasants,
converted only in name, hardly left the kingdom. But in the eighteenth century, with the
exception of a few hundred families from Perche and Maine who colonized Canada,
there was no emigration, properly speaking. Nor did immigration contribute much to the
increase of population. It consisted of a slight influx of Irish fugitives from English persecution, and some Dutch and Hanseatic merchants. Nevertheless it had a certain economic importance, as for example at Nantes and Bordeaux, where many merchant families came from foreign countries. At Marseilles, too, Greek and Armenian families served
to swell the ranks of the commercial class.
The Infinite Variety of Weights and Measures
We must mention also another phenomenon which considerably influenced the economic
and social life of the ancien régime. It is the infinite variety of weights and measures,
which we hardly need emphasize because the Revolution, by establishing the metric
system, introduced admirable simplicity and order in place of chaos.
Surface measures were relatively simple. This does not mean, however, that they
were not quite varied and different in various regions. The documents of the period
mention particularly the ar-pent and the journal. The arpent was regularly divided into
one hundred perches, but the length of the perche varied greatly—the arpent at Paris
being equivalent to 34 ares, at Poitou to 42, at Eaux and Forêts to 51. The journal, used
in Brittany, was equivalent to about 48 ares. The bois-selée (based on the volume of a
boisseau, that is, a peck and a half) varied in one and the same section to such an extent
that it could be quivalent either to 15 ares, 10 ares, or even 7 ares.
Measures of volume varied still more. The capacity of the boisseau, for example,
fluctuated in the single province of Poitou between 65 and 10 liters. Each manor, high or
average, had the right “of weights, measures and of stamping.” In order to increase its
income each one was interested in increasing the size of its measures. A letter inserted in
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 15
the “Affiches du Poitou” in 1775 declares:
“I forgot to call your attention to the fact that the boisseau of Civray should weigh
only about forty pounds, that it had only this weight in 1709, and that it has gradually
increased about three or four pounds. At Aulnay, Chiré, Beauvoir, etc., similar increases
have taken place.”
We shall see later to how much abuse this uncertainty in regard to weights and
measures led. The multiples of the boisseau (setier, muid, minot, charge, etc.) had the
same fluctuations. The litre, the pinte, the barrique and the velte were no more constant.
For measuring cloth the ell (aune) was used, and it, too, varied in different sections and
was extensively abused. Finally there was nothing more unstable than the weights used
before the Revolution. In no two places did the pound, the ounce, etc., have exactly the
same value. It is easy to see how such a system necessarily embarrassed all transactions,
and it is clear why the writers of the eighteenth century, and the official reports of the
States General of 1789, demanded the standardization of the weights and measures with
quite as much insistence as they demanded the standardization of customs. The French
Revolution was destined to satisfy this twofold demand and to establish a system so
rational that it has since served as a model for all civilized countries.
Works of Reference
Loutchisky, L’état des classes agricoles en France à la veille de la Revolution, Paris,
1911.
———, La propriété paysanne en France à la veille de la Révolution, principalement
dans le Limousin, Paris, 1912.
———, Quelques remarques sur la vente des biens nationaux, 1914.
A. Rebillion, La situation économique du clergé à la veille de la Révolution dans les
districts de Rennes, Vitré et Fougères (Collection des Documents économiques de la
Révolution), 1913.
Léon Dubreuil, La vente des biens nationaux dam le département des Côtes-du-Nord,
Paris, 1912 (thesis for the degree of docteur es lettres).
Ch. Porée, La vente des biens nationaux dans le district de Lens (Yonne), 1913 (Coll.
des Documents économiques de la Révolution).
H. Sée, Les classes rurales en Bretagne du XVIe siècle à la Révolution, Paris, 1906.
———, Esquisse d’une histoire du régime agraire en Europe aux XVIIIe et XIXe siècles,
Paris, 1921.
G. Lecarpentier, La vente des biens ecclésiastiques pendant la Révolution, Paris, 1908.
E. Levasseur, La population française, vol. I, 1889.
Mathorez, Les étrangers en France (two volumes have appeared), Paris, 1921.
G. Lefebvre, Les paysans du Nord pendant la Révolution française, Lille, 1924 (thesis
for the degree of docteur ès lettres).
16 / Henri Sée
G. A. Brutails, Recherches sur l’équivalence des anciennes mesures de la Gironde,
Bordeaux, 1912.
Paul Raveau, L’agriculture et les classes paysannes dans le Haut-Poitou au XVIe siècle,
Paris, 1925.
Chapter 2: The Peasants and Agriculture
Before we consider the classes that live from real property it would seem logical to
devote our attention to agriculture. But at the time under consideration the legal condition
of these classes was one of the essential factors for the productiveness of the soil. The
slight progress of agriculture under the ancien régime is explained in great part by the
condition of the peasants, the only class engaged in exploiting the soil. Hence we shall
begin by describing the legal condition of the rural population. This will make clearer the
reasons why before the Revolution no great change took place in agriculture.
The French peasants, during the two last centuries of the ancien régime, seem to
have been more favored than their congeners in the rest of Europe, for to a large extent
they were personally free and owned their land.
The Mortgagors
Servitude still existed but was retained only in certain regions where it had been most
frequent during the Middle Ages, especially in the north-east (Franche-Comté and Lorraine), and also in less compact groups in some sections of the central region (Berry,
Nivernais, Marche and Auvergne). The total number of serfs, it seems, did not exceed
one million.
Moreover, they were not so much serfs, in the sense of the Middle Ages, as they
were mainmortables (mortgagors). We distinguish between a personal mortmain and a
real mortmain, predominant in eastern France. In the former case the children, if they do
not live with their parents, can not inherit any of their property. In the latter case the
peasant is subject to the mortmain only for the mortgageable goods that he holds.
It is true that mortmain was preserved until the Revolution, in spite of the energetic
campaign which Voltaire undertook in favor of the serfs of Mont-Jura.
18 / Henri Sée
In 1779 Necker abolished mortmain on the royal estates, and in the entire kingdom
the right of suite. But the lords did not imitate the example set by the government. Mortmain
continued until the Revolution, but only as an exception, the immense majority of peasants being personally free.
The Various Classes. Farmers and “Métayers”
The peasants, although they enjoyed complete liberty, did not, however, form a single
class, for they did not all possess the same amount of property. There were some who
could live exclusively from the cultivation of their fields, and who constituted a sort of
peasant aristocracy, the class of laborers. They were the ones who increased their holdings, profited by clearings, and during the Revolution took advantage of the sale of the
national property. But most of the peasants did not own enough land to permit them to
live thereby. If they had some capital they became farmers or métayers (co-operative
farmers). The poorest hired themselves out as day-laborers or servants. Many of the
proprietor peasants conducted a gainful trade on the side, being merchants, millers, innkeepers or artisans (masons, carpenters, tailors, weavers). Thus the extension of rural
industry is explained. The agricultural laboring class, the day-laborers, never had the
importance in France that it had in England.
Exploitation on a large scale did not exist in France. The nobles themselves did not
cultivate the lands of their immediate domain, nor did they lease them to capitalist contractors, or to farmers, as in England.
It was the peasants who as tenant farmers or métayers tilled the great majority of
lands belonging to the privileged classes. The size of the parcels of land actually cultivated varied infinitely in extent. Some were as large as ten or twenty hectares; but others
again were mere small gardens, containing only small strips of land. Some of the farmers
were in easy circumstances, while others were paupers. In general the parcels actually
cultivated were quite small, and the distribution of the farms corresponded to the distribution of the land.
Leasing on the basis of an equal division of the crops, or cooperative farming
(métayage), quite rare today, seems to have been the general practise in the eighteenth
century, especially in the poorer provinces, where the peasants had neither capital nor
stock. This was predominantly the case in the central and southern portions. It is true of
about half of the lands rented out in Brittany and Lorraine. The farmer had to give to the
owner, who advanced him seed and stock, half of the crop, sometimes even more,
depending upon the form of lease, as for example that used in Upper Brittany, where
money-rent was added to rent in kind (bail à détroit). Hence the métayer was often in a
pitiable condition, as Arthur Young testifies in his “Travels in France”:
“Since the tenants have hardly anything to offer but the strength of their arms, they
are more at the mercy of the proprietor than if they possessed some means; they would
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 19
not be content, in their contracts, with a profit less than the interest on their capital.”
Mr. Young explains also that many of the cooperative farmers were in such miserable
circumstances that they were forced to borrow their subsistence from the proprietor until
the next crop was harvested.
The condition of the ordinary tenant farmers seems to have been somewhat better.
Their lease, made for three, six or nine years, stipulated the payment of a fixed sum of
money, to which were added, however, payments in kind and various forms of compulsory labor. The system of renting was predominant in northern France, where agricultural
exploitations were more considerable than elsewhere. This was the case in Artois, Picardy,
Vexin, and Beauce. During the second half of the eighteenth century farms were operated
in chains. These chains, very advantageous for the proprietors, whose income they increased, unfortunately put many of the less prosperous farmers out of work and increased the antagonism between the rich cultivators and the poor. The memorials of
1789—the so-called cahiers—show this clearly. A circumstance that also contributed to
the misfortune of the farmers was the very rapid rise in the prices of farms, especially in
the second half of the century. It is true that during the same period the price of commodities also increased. But this was only an insufficient offset, for while food prices
rose from 40 to 50 per cent, the price of farms often increased 100 per cent. In this way
the proprietors succeeded in adding considerably to their income.
We should note also certain systems of renting prevalent in various regions, such as
the terminable domain in Lower Brittany. According to this system the domanial farmer
was at the same time proprietor and tenant-farmer. While the lord owned the land, the
tenant owned the buildings and whatever was above the ground. But he was at the mercy
of the lord, who could terminate the agreement unless he had assured the tenant of a
definite tenure, generally fixed at nine years. For this assurance, called baillée, the tenant
was often compelled to pay an excessive commission. Furthermore the tenant had to pay
not only the stipulated rent, but also the domanial dues of various kinds. In the vineyards
near Nantes we find the system of renting known as co-planting (complant). The coplanter was the owner, not of the land, but of the vine-plants. As soon as the plant
disappeared, the tenure reverted to the proprietor. “We should mention also the system
current in Picardy, known as the right of market (droit de marché), whereby the farmers
looked upon themselves as perpetual lessees. In Languedoc and Dauphiné, again, there
were the perpetual leases (locatairies perpétuelles), which assured a sort of perpetual
usufruct to the tenant.
The Day-laborers and Servants
The peasants who were too destitute were forced to take employment as agricultural
laborers or day-laborers. No doubt this class was much less numerous in France than in
England. Nevertheless it formed an important part of the agricultural population, espe-
20 / Henri Sée
cially in sections such as Flanders, Picardy, eastern Normandy and Brittany. We have
shown elsewhere that in certain parishes of Brittany the majority were day-laborers.
The wages of the day-laborers naturally varied according to locality. They do not
seem to have exceeded 7 or 8 sous for men and 5 or 6 sous for women. At the end of the
ancien régime they seem to have increased a little, but the increase was, as usual in such
cases, not commensurate with the increased cost of living. Hence the day-laborers were
most affected by crises, such as hard times, epidemics, etc., and they contributed the
greatest number of beggars and vagabonds, of whom there were very many up to the
time of the Revolution.
The servants, employed especially on the larger farms, enjoyed a less precarious
existence than the day-laborers, since they were hired by the year and received lodging
and board. Their wages increased perceptibly during the eighteenth century. The “Souvenirs d’un nonagénaire” (Recollections of a Nonagenarian) indicate, for the end of the
ancien régime, the following figures for annual wages, which do not seem exceptional:
Foreman
84 to 90 livres.
Carter
54 to 66 livres
Ox-driver
30 to 36 livres.
Stable-boy
60 to 66 livres
Female servant
24 to 33 livres
And in addition, the last-mentioned received one or two pairs of wooden shoes and
one or two ells of cloth.
The food of the servants consisted especially of bread, butter, and cakes. Sometimes they received also bacon; other meat they got but rarely. Their ordinary beverage
was water, except in the winegrowing regions, where they were provided with sour wine
made from grapes or apples.
The Manorial System (Régime Seigneurial)
The condition of the peasants cannot be understood without a knowledge of the nature
of the manorial system. As a tenant of the manor, the peasant was subject to all the dues
of the manorial system. In the first place, he was obliged to pay for admission to his
status (aveu) upon the occasion of a transfer, not to mention the general aveu to which
vassals were bound every ten, twenty or thirty years. As for the dues, they were certainly
less burdensome than they had been during the Middle Ages. The personal dues were
almost all transformed into real dues, being charged only against the tenures. The socalled taille had disappeared almost completely. Compulsory labor had usually given
way to money dues, or represented only a few days’ labor throughout the year. The dues
that were maintained most successfully were those charged against the land and collected
in money or kind (rent or quit-rent). Since for several centuries they had remained remarkably constant, the money-rents were, as a result of the diminution of the value of
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 21
money, slightly reduced. The rents in kind, and notably champerty, were the only heavy
dues. Dues of succession (the rachat or acapte) or of transfer (lods and ventes) weighed
rather heavily upon the tenants of the lowest class. The socomes of the millers, bakers,
and wine-pressers (banalités) constituted a heavy and pressing obligation. The tolls, and
the dues of the market and the fair, embarrassed commercial transactions and hindered
the sale of agricultural commodities. The hunting right seems to have been the most
odious of all the manorial monopolies, for the hounds of the nobles and the game of the
vivaries ravaged the cultivated fields. This was a source of universal complaint in France.
Finally, manorial justice, which permitted the lord to be judge and party in suits relative to
rights that he exercised over his tenants, was the indispensable instrument of exploitation
on the part of the lords. Nowhere did this appear more clearly than in Brittany, where
“fief” and justice were confused. In both civil and criminal suits there is general complaint over the evils of the manorial courts, and also of the great number of jurisdictions
superimposed upon one another.
To the dues of the manorial system there must be added the tithes, which often
enough had become the property of a lay lord (enfeoffed tithes). They consumed an
important part of the crop (a tenth or a thirteenth), and applied not only to grain (great
tithes), but also to flax, hemp, beans and fruits (small tithes). Often they deprived the
peasants of a larger part of his revenue than all the manorial rents. In Bordelais, for
example, the tithes amounted to 14 per cent, while the manorial rents represented only 11
per cent. We should note also that the lords complained almost as bitterly of the ecclesiastical tithes as the peasants. Hence it is easy to explain their abolition at the beginning of
the Revolution.
It is worthy of note that the manorial system did not have the same intensity in all
parts of France. Very rigorous in Brittany, rather harsh in Lorraine, oppressive in Auvergne and in the section of Autun, as well as in Bordeaux, it seems to have been less
onerous in Maine, Normandy, and Champagne. Around Orléans, in Angoumois, and in
Flanders along the coast it was even less burdensome.
Extent of the System and Aggravation of Manorial Exploitation
To understand the extent of the manorial system, we must take into account not only the
dues themselves, but also the abuses and vexations to which they led. Thus the socomes
were so unbearable only on account of the exactions of the millers, who demanded more
than the usual fee and cheated with regard to the weight of wheat. For the payment of the
aveux unreasonable sums were collected, and often they were re-collected on the pretext
that the declarations were erroneous. This was called impunissement. Beside the base
services, there were demanded, especially in Brittany, extraordinary services that had
developed in the course of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. As for rents, the
manner in which they were collected increased their burdensomeness. The “solidarity of
22 / Henri Sée
rents” obliged the tenants to pay the quota for the insolvents. Fines were demanded for
every delay in payment. Sometimes the rents were allowed to be in arrears for fifteen or
twenty years, and then a lump payment was demanded, a thing that embarrassed the
peasants greatly. The collection of rents in kind led to even greater abuses. If there was
delay in their delivery, they were demanded in money, according to valuation, at the
market price. But often the valuation was made in an arbitrary manner, in such a way that
the market price was fixed at a time when grain was at its peak. The tenants were also
cheated in the measurement of grain, for the measures varied extremely in different localities.
It would seem that the manorial dues were made heavier at the end of the ancien
régime, and that there came about what is known as the “feudal reaction.” This reaction
is not manifested in the creation of new obligations, but in the arbitrary increase of the old
ones, or in the revival of those that had fallen into disuse. In the second half of the
eighteenth century there was a revival of the court-rolls (terriers), burdensome for the
vassals, who complained of the vexatious activity and exactions of the terrier commissioners.
The reasons for the reaction against the manorial system are easily explained if we
consider that the lords, being ever more in need of raising money, endeavored to get as
much as they could from their manorial rights, as well as from their farm-rents. In fact,
the manorial accounts show that the revenues of the privileged owners increased notably
during the last twenty years of the ancien régime.
This also explains why the lords tried to derive benefit from those parts of their
property which until then had remained unproductive, and came into conflict with the
rights of usufruct enjoyed by the peasants, trying to deprive them of the collective enjoyment of the wood-lands, waste-lands, and barren stretches which the peasants needed
for wood-cutting, for fertilizing their lands, and for pasturing their cattle. In order to
restrict the uses of the inhabitants, the lords had a legal recourse. They concluded with
them the so-called contracts of cantonment or of choice (triage), which reserved twothirds or one-third of the waste-lands. These contracts became more numerous after
1750. But often they resorted also to brutal usurpation, using even fraudulent means. The
lands thus freed from use were leased for quit-rent by the lords, on condition that toll or
dues be paid. Such subinfeudations were advantageous for the bourgeoisie and peasants
in better circumstances, but they were very disadvantageous for the poor, who could not
do without the use of these lands. Often the two classes were thereby brought into
conflict in the fields, or divided into two hostile camps. Such methods on the part of the
lords were noted everywhere, but particularly in provinces where the manorial system
remained strong, as in Brittany; in the wooded regions, such as Lorraine; and also in the
mountains, as in Haute-Auvergne and Dauphiné, where the commoners predominated.
All these abuses and acts of usurpation were, moreover, favored by the parliaments,
whose members frequently possessed important rural lands (especially in Brittany and
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 23
Dauphiné) and took advantage of their authority to impose unjust burdens upon their
vassals.
Hence we find at the end of the ancien régime an aggravation of manorial exploitation, more marked in some places than in others. Although the abuses involved mainly
the reëstablishment of old rights that had fallen into disuse, and the exaggeration of
abusive practises, the peasants were convinced that they were being made the victims of
hateful innovations, and that never before had they been so cruelly exploited. It is thus
that we may explain the vehement claims that they made in the parish memorials of 1789,
as also in the petitions addressed to the feudal committee of the Constituent Assembly. It
is thus, too, that we may explain the agrarian troubles which after July 14 accompanied
the Great Fear, and which appeared with even greater intensity in 1790 and 1791, until the
Convention took the radical step of abolishing the whole manorial system.
The Taxes Levied by the Royal Treasury
The taxes levied by the royal treasury were very instrumental in aggravating the condition
of the peasants. It was the peasants alone who paid the taille, and even the new imposts
(capitation and twentieth-tax) that were aimed at the nobles, fell almost entirely upon the
rural population. We must also take into account the very defective, unjust system of
assessment of the taxes, as well as the evils of the manner of collecting them. The notables of the parishes, who had to collect them, were obliged to pay the quota of those who
defaulted.
It would be interesting to determine the portion of the income deducted by taxation.
But there are no exact statistics available on this question.
In Bordelais, according to Marion, the taxes took 36 per cent of the income; in
Limousin, where a rate was fixed for the taille, the taxes absorbed one-third of the
income on good lands and four-fifths on mediocre land. In Saintonge the taxes totaled
one-fourth of the price of the farm.
The franc-fief constituted also a heavy burden on the lands owned by the nobles and
occupied by commoners, for it deprived the latter of a year’s revenue every twenty years
and also upon the occasion of each succession. Nor should we forget the new roadlabor duties dating from the eighteenth century, carried out in a very oppressive manner
and with unjust distribution, since these duties affected only the peasants, although they
used the roads very little. Then there was also billeting and carting for the army. Finally
there was the militia, in itself not a heavy service, but weighing only upon the peasants,
and, by virtue of its system of exemptions, mainly upon those in poor circumstances.
All the writers of the time were struck by the overwhelming burden which the taxes
imposed upon the peasants. Jean Jacques Rousseau, in his “Confessions,” relates that
one day he requested the hospitality of a peasant, who at first served him only the coarsest of foods; but little by little the peasant allowed himself to be coaxed, and finally
24 / Henri Sée
brought out wine, white bread, and delicious ham.
“He gave me to understand that he hid his wine because of his hired help, and that he
hid his bread because of the taille. He said he would be lost if people thought otherwise
than that he was dying of hunger. Here (adds Rousseau) was the germ of that undying
hatred which since then has developed in my heart against the torments of the unfortunate
people and against their oppressors.”
Agricultural Exploitation
Few large parcels, a predominance of exploitation on a small scale, and cultivation in the
hands of the poor peasants—these are some of the conditions that militate against the
progress of agriculture. In fact, French agriculture was at this time quite backward, especially if we compare it with English agriculture.
One characteristic feature was the great quantity of uncultivated lands and wastelands, especially in Brittany, where they comprised two-fifths of the area, and in the
mountainous regions, such as Rous-sillon, the Central Chain (Massif Central) and the
Alpine regions. To be sure, the proportion was; much smaller in the Isle de France, in
Picardy, Flanders and Alsace. The uncultivated lands play an important part in the rural
economy of the period. Many peasants without pasturage sent their cattle to graze on the
common waste-lands and used the produce of these lands as litter for their animals, and
especially as fertilizer for their fields.
The methods of cultivation remained very primitive, and progress was very slow,
except in the richest and most fertile regions. The farm-buildings were poorly arranged,
and the implements were unsatisfactory and quite primitive, being hardly superior to
those employed during the Middle Ages. Intensive cultivation was practically unknown
almost everywhere. The system of fallow land was used universally, except in Flanders,
Alsace, and a part of Normandy. Even in Picardy the land lay idle one year in three. In
Brittany it was left idle every other year, sometimes for two years out of three, and certain
“cold” lands were cultivated only every seven or eight years, or even every twenty years.
The artificial meadow was hardly ever used.
The peasants, prompted by the spirit of routine and having but little capital, devoted
no great care to cultivation. They did not plow deeply, they weeded their grain negligently, sowed too late, and used poor seed. Almost everywhere there was lack of good
manure. Since the farm itself furnished very little manure, leaves and ferns, allowed to rot,
were used instead. This explains the small crops. In Brittany they hardly exceeded 5 or 6
to 1; in Limousin 3 or 4, while in Flanders they rose exceptionally to 11.
Another characteristic feature was that in almost all France wheat was considered a
luxury crop and rye predominated, except in Toulouse, Angoumois, and the coastal
region of Brittany. Poor land was used particularly for buckwheat, and this furnished the
peasants their principal nourishment in the form of cakes. In the central and southern
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 25
sections maize played an important part. Flax and hemp were more extensively cultivated
than is the case today, because of the extent of rural and domestic industry. The government, fearing that wines might take the place of grains, restricted the cultivation of the
former in the eighteenth century. But it flourished and was remunerative in the south and
particularly in Lower Languedoc. Forest exploitation, ruined by a poor system of management and by abuses on the part of the commoners, left much to be desired, and the
development of the iron-works, mines and foundries increased deforestation, which became more and more serious. Cattle-raising and horse-breeding remained very mediocre,
although the second half of the eighteenth century witnessed a certain amount of improvement.
Carelessness on the part of the great proprietors, the indolence of the peasants, who
were discouraged by the overwhelming taxes, insufficiency of the ways of communication and particularly of the main highways, in addition to obstacles placed in the path of
the trade in agricultural commodities and in the path of free cultivation—all these things
explain the slow development of agriculture.
During the second half of the eighteenth century efforts were, indeed, made to improve agricultural conditions, but the initiative was taken almost exclusively by the government.
Under the influence of the economists, and particularly the physiocrats, agriculture
became one of the most important considerations of the royal administration. Memorials
and instructions were continually sent to the governors of the provinces recommending
improved methods in agriculture. The first agricultural committee was created in 1761,
and Bertin, who from 1761 to 1783 seems to have been a veritable minister of economic
affairs, initiated a whole series of measures for increasing the productiveness of the soil.
Toward the end of the ancien régime, as a result of the drought of 1785, a committee for
the administration of agriculture was created, having among its members some very distinguished scholars, agriculturists and economists, such as Lavoisier, the botanist du
Tillet, the economist Dupont de Nemours, the inspector of factories Lazowski, and Duke
de la Rochefoucauld-Liancourt. These men made interesting investigations and drew up
very instructive reports, but their activities extended over only two years, from 1785 to
1787.
Since 1761 Bertin had endeavored to establish in each generality an agricultural society. The estates of Brittany had founded one as early as 1757. These societies made
interesting investigations, and their members drew up reports and even conducted experiments. But their efforts, which extended over only a few years, do not seem to have
had a great effect upon the progress of agriculture. The great majority of the planters
remained faithful to the traditional practises, especially on account of lack of capital.
Only in the rich sections of the northwest was appreciable progress noted. Artificial
meadows were developed there and new crops introduced.
It is true that in the kingdom as a whole the amount of productive lands increased.
26 / Henri Sée
The royal declarations of 1764 and 1766 encouraged, by exemption from taxation, the
draining of the marshes and the clearing of the uncultivated lands. Indeed important
sections were drained in Picardy, Normandy, Brittany and Vendée. Many uncultivated
lands were cleared in all sections. However, on the eve of the Revolution the main part of
the work still remained to be done. For the mass of the population, needing the wastelands for its own uses, was opposed to draining and clearing, and for the same reason
there was opposition to the division of the common property. In fact, such division was
not very usual before the Revolution, as shown by the documents published by Georges
Bourgin.
Division of the commons, draining and clearing seemed advantageous only to the
great proprietors and such farmers as were in easy circumstances.
They alone reacted favorably to the efforts of the government, undertaken during the
last twenty years of the ancien régime, to restrict common pasture and the right of
commonage, practises that were quite injurious to agriculture. It was found necessary to
resort to partial measures, applicable only to regions in which reform seemed most urgent. Even these measures were not entirely effective.
There was a genuine need for a complete redistribution of lands, analogous to the
system of enclosures which at that time was practised in England. But this was out of the
question in France.
Rural Industry
An indication of the insufficiency of agricultural production is the extension of rural
industry in the seventeenth, and especially the eighteenth, century. This furnished an
important addition to the means of subsistence of the peasant. We find it to be the case
particularly in Brittany and Lower Maine. In Brittany the cloth industry was exclusively
rural and domestic. Those engaged in it were the small proprietors, farmers (who often
employed their servants), and day-laborers, who manufactured cloth when they had no
work. The wages of the weavers were very small and the profits went largely to the
manufacturers, that is, the merchants, who took up the finished product and often advanced the raw materials.
In regions where agriculture was more prosperous, as in western Normandy, Picardy,
and Flanders, the peasants engaged in rural industry were those who possessed too little
land to live from agriculture. In eastern Normandy the Parliament of Rouen, in 1722,
speaks of peasants abandoning the cultivation of the soil in order to spin and card cotton, and it complains of the injurious result for agriculture. There was no Norman village
without its spinners and weavers. Some 180,000 persons were thus employed by the
industry at Rouen.
Picardy presented a quite similar picture.
In those provinces in which industry to some extent turned the cities toward the rural
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 27
sections, the rural artisan was more closely bound to the class of merchants who took up
his products and furnished him not only with the raw material, but even with the loom. In
this case rural industry appears indeed to have been the first stage of development leading to the triumph of the great capitalist industry. In the rural sections of Upper Normandy and near Troyes the looms of the cotton trade did great damage to the workmen
in the cities, who complained to the manufacturers that they were being reduced to misery. Because of mechanical improvements the weaver’s trade was within reach of rather
unskilled artisans without professional training and commanding very low wages, a fact
which inspired the merchants all the more to avail themselves of their labor.
Mode of Life among the Peasants
The material existence of the peasants was still quite miserable, even at the end of the
ancien régime. Their dwelling-places were altogether inadequate. Most of them were
built of mud, covered with thatch, and having only a single low room without a ceiling.
The windows were small and had no glass. In Brittany, and especially in Lower Brittany,
it has been said that the peasants lived “in the water and in the mud.” This is one of the
principal causes for the epidemics that were still so frequent. However, as today, living
conditions varied in different regions. In northern France the peasants seemed to have
the most comfortable homes.
Furthermore, we must never fail to distinguish between the peasants in comfortable
circumstances and the poor ones, particularly when we consider furniture and clothing.
The former had furnishings that were simple, primitive and suitable, sufficient dishes and
linen, as well as enough clothing. The poor, on the other hand, could hardly satisfy their
most elementary requirements. Among the well-to-do the inventory after death—our principal source of information—sometimes estimates the furnishings at over one thousand
francs; among the poor they are frequently worth no more than 50 or even 20 livres. The
poor dispose of only one or two trunks, a table, a kneading-trough, a bench, and a
roughly hewn bed. Among the farmers in good circumstances we find well made beds,
wardrobes, all sorts of household utensils, bowls of wood or earthenware, pottery, and
glasses. In clothing we also find great variety, from very good to very poor. Working
clothes were almost always of canvas. Many peasants had only wooden shoes, or went
barefoot, especially in the south. Heavy taxes on skins made shoes very expensive.
The food of the peasants was always coarse, and often insufficient. Meat appeared
on the table but rarely. Sometimes they ate bacon. Except in sections where wine was
plentiful, water was the usual beverage. In Brittany cider was drunk only in years of
abundance. The basic foods were bread, soup, dairy products, and butter. Wheat bread
was quite rare; only bread of rye and oats, and that frequently of poor quality, was
known. In the poorest regions the peasants ate biscuits and porridge of buckwheat, or
even of chestnuts or maize. Wheat and even rye served largely to pay the taxes and farm-
28 / Henri Sée
rent, or were sold for export when this was permitted. Potatoes, which later became a
staple food-product among the farmers, were grown only in a few particularly fertile
regions, as for example in certain parts of the coastal region of Brittany.
Clothes were often wretched. The description of Besnard in “Souvenirs d’un
nonagénaire” probably is accurate:
“The clothing of the poor peasants—and they were almost all poor—was even more
pitiful, for they had only one outfit for winter and summer, regardless of the quality of the
material. And their single pair of shoes, very thin and cleated with nails, which they
procured at the time of their marriage, had to serve them the rest of their lives, or at least
as long as the shoes lasted.”
The women “wore a short cloak of coarse material or black caddis, to which was
attached a hood for enveloping the head and neck in case of rain or cold.” This description agrees pretty well with the reports of the inventories.
Crises and Misery
If we would form an idea of the mode of life of the peasants, we must also distinguish
between normal periods and critical times caused by foreign wars or bad crops.
In the eighteenth century the crises were less grave but no less frequent than in the
seventeenth century. Certain provinces had directly borne the brunt of war, as for example Lorraine and Burgundy, which suffered terrible ravages, especially during the first
half of the seventeenth century.
Around Dijon, as Gaston Roupnal shows, entire villages were depopulated and the
fields were left uncultivated.
Even under the personal government of Louis XIV, which is usually praised as having been very prosperous, there was great suffering in the rural sections of every part of
France. In 1675 Lesdiguières, governor of Dauphiné, wrote:
“It is a fact, and I assure you that I know whereof I speak, that the great majority of
the inhabitants of this province lived during the winter only from acorns and roots, and
that now they can be seen eating the grass of the fields and the bark of the trees.”
After 1685 the misery even increased. In 1687 Henri d’Aguesseau and Anton Lefèvre
d’Ormes-son, making an investigation in Maine and around Orléans, declared:
“There are practically no peasants in comfortable circumstances. There are only
poor cooperative farmers who have nothing. The landlords have to furnish them with
cattle, lend them food, pay their taille, and take their crops in payment, and often even
this does not cancel the debt.... The peasants live from buckwheat bread. Others, who
have no buckwheat, live from roots of ferns boiled with the flour of barley or oats, and
salt.... One finds them sleeping on straw. They have no clothing except what they wear,
and that is very poor. They are destitute of furnishings and provisions. Everything in their
huts points to dire need.”
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 29
In 1684 the ambassador of Venice declared: “I have seen with my own eyes sections
that formerly had 700 or 800 homes, now reduced to 30 by the continual passage of
troops of war.”
During the last fifteen years of the reign of Louis XIV the misery grew more serious.
The winter of 1709 witnessed a veritable famine.
All these facts must be taken into consideration if we would realize that during the
last twenty-four years of the ancien régime there was, so far as these matters are concerned, undeniable improvement. During the eighteenth century the theatre of hostilities
was almost always located beyond the frontiers, and there were fewer wars than during
the era of the Great King. Nevertheless, there were great crises in 1725, 1740, 1759, from
1766 to 1768, from 1772 to 1776, in 1784 and 1785, and in 1789. Prices of food increased enormously. In 1785 the great drought compelled the farmers to sell a part of
their cattle. In 1774 and again in 1789 the farmers had to live from turnips, milk, and even
grass. In these critical years the day-laborers especially were affected, since they had
nothing but the strength of their arms to depend upon.
But perhaps we should not paint the picture in too lurid colors. There were regions
where agriculture was more prosperous, such as Flanders, Picardy, Normandy and Beauce,
where the peasants were better off. This will be better understood when new monographs have been published. At present the best impression of this condition is given by
Arthur Young’s “Travels in France.” This English economist observes the contrast that
exists between the various regions. He notes the prosperity of sections where the land is
cultivated mostly by small proprietors. Coming from Spain to France, he admires the
prosperity of Béarn:
“Here, without passing a city, a barrier, or even a wall, we enter a new world. From
the poor, miserable roads of Catalonia we suddenly reach a splendid highway built with
all the substantial quality and excellence that characterize the great highways of France. In
place of beds of torrents, there are well constructed bridges. From a rude desert region
we come suddenly into a country of agriculture and progress.”
All in all, we may say that there was more prosperity, relatively at least, in the rural
sections, especially after 1750. And yet the peasant at the time of the outbreak of the
Revolution had a keener feeling for his suffering. The reason is perhaps, as has been well
said, that “the very alleviation of his misery made him feel all the more acutely what
remained of it. Perhaps he was disgusted with the present by the new ideas and hopes
that had made their way even into the rural sections.”
Epidemics, Mendicity, and Aid
A consequence of the misery and bad living conditions are the frequent epidemics, which,
although less dreadful than those of the Middle Ages, were none the less quite fatal.
Measles and especially small-pox, typhus and typhoid fever claimed thousands of vic-
30 / Henri Sée
tims. In Brittany alone, during the year 1741, there were 80,000 deaths. It is a curious fact
that the epidemics were more frequent and more formidable in the rural sections than in
the cities. This is commented upon by the physicians of the period, and particularly by
Dr. Bagot of Saint-Brieuc, in his “Observations médicinales” (Medical Observations).
The peasants were almost entirely without medical attention. Only toward the end of the
ancien régime did the government organize medical assistance, distributing remedies
and appointing physicians in charge of epidemics.
Mendicity and vagrancy became veritable scourges against which the government
was powerless. Especially in the rural sections the beggars and tramps were numerous.
At critical times the day-laborers, reduced to misery, increased the number of these
unfortunates. Many sought refuge in the cities, thinking that they would secure aid there.
But the cities were no better off than the country.
In the face of this misery private charity was of no avail. Public assistance, organized
in the cities, became increasingly inefficient in the country. Hospitals and charitable institutions, until then rather common, gradually disappeared. For example, in the section of
Rennes, Fougères, and Vitré, at the end of the ancien régime, there remained hospitals in
only three out of 140 parishes. For feeding the poor there were, generally speaking, only
small foundations. The parish clergy took pity on the unfortunates, but generally there
were no resources available. The rich abbeys did not respond as much as might have
been expected. Hence the state was obliged to do what it could. Serious efforts were
made by ministers who were reformers, such as Turgot and Necker. Charitable workshops were established to help the poor, and stations for distributing alms. But at the
approach of the Revolution only insignificant results had been achieved, and the question, now having assumed serious proportions, was brought before the Constituent Assembly, which elected a Committee on Mendicity.
Agrarian Troubles
Usually the rural population passively endured the charges that oppressed them. It is a
curious fact that there were real insurrections only during the reign of Louis XIV, whose
authority, it is usually claimed, was so absolute. And these insurrections took place precisely during the years that were the most prosperous of his entire reign. The peasants
rebelled against the establishment of new taxes or the increase of old ones. In 1662
Boulonnais, the section around Boulogne, rebelled. In spite of ancient privileges, Louis
XIV had wished to impose upon the province, as he says in his Mémoires, “a very small
sum,” which “produced a bad effect.” Six thou’sand persons took up arms, and the
revolt was harshly repressed. In 1664 trouble arose in Béarn and Bigorre when the salttax was introduced. It lasted for several years, and the entire section was up in arms. In
1670 the absurd rumor spread in Vivarais that according to an edict a tax was to be levied
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 31
on all births, clothes, and new hats. The whole section around Aubenas, some twenty
parishes in all, rose under the leadership of Antoine du Roure.
When at the outbreak of the war with Holland in 1675, Colbert had to create new
taxes (stamped paper, increase of the salt-tax, monopoly in tobacco, etc.), the section of
Guyenne rebelled and the government mobilized two hundred companies to repress the
insurrection. At the same time a part of Lower Brittany rebelled for the same reason. A
certain number of parishes drew up what was known as the Peasant Code, a whole
program of claims, and a sort of forerunner of the memorials of 1789. In fact the insurrection began to assume the proportions of a peasant revolt in defiance of the nobility. As
is shown by the historian Jean Lemoine, who has written an excellent study upon the
revolt over the stamped paper, the means of repression were terrible. The revolting peasants were hanged, and the troops proceeded to kill and pillage. All these insurrections
seem to have been spontaneous. As Ernest Lavisse remarks very accurately, “in the case
of these ‘emotions’, which arise for the same reasons and at the same time in different
places, there is no understanding necessary between the various sections. Brittany and
Guyenne, Rennes and Bordeaux, each acted independently, without knowledge of the
actions of the others. The individual conflagrations did not unite into a single flame.”
It is interesting to note that during the eighteenth century, which is generally regarded
as an era of decadence so far as the royal authority is concerned, there were no peasant
uprisings comparable with the troubles that marked the reign of the Great King. The rural
sections generally remained calm, either because the economic conditions were better
than in the seventeenth century, as the quite considerable increase in population tends to
prove, or because the provincial administration was better organized, and police protection was more efficient. Only just before the Revolution were there uprisings, caused by
fear of famine because of the exportation of grain. And even so the government took
measures to prevent suffering or to ward off its effects, by buying grain, subventioning
the importers of grain and distributing it gratuitously or at a low price. Serious agrarian
troubles arose only at the time of the Revolution, on the day after the 14th of July, and
after the night of August 4, when the peasants wanted to secure the abolition of the hated
manorial system, the suppression of which had been promised by the bourgeoisie.
Moral Condition
It is still more difficult to conceive the moral condition of the peasants than it is to get an
idea of their material life. How shall we determine exactly the collective character of a
class that is so numerous and whose economic condition is far from being uniform?
It seems clear that these people, who were in such a state of dependence, whose
existence was often so miserable, and who were so poorly fed and deprived of every
comfort, should often lack the spirit for work, and should be deficient in energy and
initiative. This is true particularly of the poor sections, such as Brittany. It is the general
32 / Henri Sée
impression of officials and travelers who were in this province during the eighteenth
century. According to the governor Gallois de la Tour, in his memorial of 1733, there
were a great number of regions where the population was industrious or at least
hardworking. On the other hand, in the poorest sections, the inhabitants were “idlers,”
drunkards and boors, “without any initiative,” and neglected planting and stock-raising.
Toward the end of the ancien régime an intelligent observer, de Bré-montier, notes the
short-sightedness of the peasants of Brittany:
“The tiller works only for himself. His foresight does not extend beyond what is
necessary. He is unconcerned about his future needs, and he relies constantly upon an
ever just Providence, that often dooms him to privations well deserved because of his
negligence. When this happens, his cup of misery is full.”
The Revolution, by lightening the burdens of the peasants and freeing them from the
evils of the manorial system, and by allowing them to profit from the sale of the national
property, that is by increasing their own possessions, helped to make them more active
and more energetic. Bes-nard in his Souvenirs notes a typical example of this on the
lands of the old abbey of Fontevrault.
Often brutality was a trait characteristic of the peasant. Frequently the servants were
maltreated. In Tréguier in Brittany a court declares that “the contempt for the laws and
the insolence of certain prosperous peasants of this section have increased to such a
degree that it is not possible for a servant to work for them without incurring the risk of
being continually flogged or reviled, or both.” Brawls were frequent, involving either
individuals or the inhabitants of two entire villages. That is the reason why in many regions the village festivals, the so-called “assemblies,” which were occasions for general
amusement and often ended in brawls, were looked forward to with apprehension. That
was especially the case in sections like Brittany, where the population, scattered in isolated houses or hamlets, was ill suited for social life. Another incentive for violence was
drunkenness. To be sure, there was infinitely less drinking of whiskey in the rural sections
than there is today, and there was less alcoholism. Nevertheless the parish memorials of
1789 demand the restriction of the numerous inns, not only in the villages, but also along
the roads.
Instruction
It may be said that the rural population was very uneducated and that the great majority of
peasants could neither read nor write.
In certain regions, particularly in the east and north, schools were more numerous,
but elsewhere, especially in the west, many parishes had no schools at all; and girls’
schools were even more scarce. Since usually no foundation assured the maintenance of
the schools, they were in charge, more or less regularly, of the priest or his vicar. We
must also add that because the instruction depended upon private charity—the small
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 33
schools were often called “charity schools,”—it was necessarily rather precarious. Sometimes schools remained closed for years. Furthermore the elementary instruction was
very poor indeed. It consisted only of reading, writing and the catechism. The investigation conducted by the Abbot Grégoire in 1790, so well utilized by Ferd. Brunot in vol.
VII of his Histoire de la Langue française, clearly shows the insufficient number of
schools and the poor quality of the instruction offered by them. How much it left to be
desired is shown in an indirect way by the project attributed to Turgot in the Mémoires
sur les municipalités (Memorials on the municipalities), drawn up by Dupont de Nemours,
as well as by the splendid programs of national education worked out by the revolutionary assemblies.
At any rate there can be no doubt as to the enormous amount of illiteracy in the rural
sections. One of the many proofs of this is the fact that the parish memorials of 1789,
especially in Brittany, bear very few signatures, and frequently the memorials state that
“all those able to write have signed,” or that “the majority could not write their names.”
The minutes of the Assembly of Pontivy of 1790 note that “in the rural municipalities the
mayors and municipal officers can hardly write.” The signatures on the marriage contracts that have come down to us are for the most part illegible. Finally there are numerous memorials of 1789 demanding “a school teacher, of whom the children have been
deprived up to the present,” and asking for the establishment of “good schools.”
Parish Administration
And yet we can notice the first beginnings of a political life. The peasants were beginning
to become clearly conscious of their collective interests. They took part actively in the
administration of the parish. It is true that the parish assembly, the body of inhabitants,
lost its authority more and more to the advantage of a small body of notables, called in
Brittany the “general” of the parish. The “general” or council of the parish comprised the
lord, his seneschal, or his fiscal attorney, the rector, twelve délibérants, and the two
treasurers or church-wardens on duty. The délibérants could be chosen only from among
the former treasurers. The great majority of inhabitants took part but rarely in the administration.
The parish had officers that executed the decisions of the general. They were the
recorders, the beadles and especially the church-wardens or treasurers. The latter, elected
for one year, administered the funds and revenues of the parish, the brotherhoods and
foundations, called together the general, and proposed the agenda for its deliberations.
They had charge also of the maintenance of foundlings, of the equipment of the militia, of
the administration of the ordinary revenues and the extraordinary taxes. They had a financial responsibility. Their duties were therefore difficult and burdensome, and of course
the peasants tried to evade them as much as possible.
The parish generals were at the same time fabric councils and municipal councils.
34 / Henri Sée
Hence they had twofold duties, those of the fabric, which was generally quite prosperous, since it had a definite budget, and those of the “external government,” the condition
of which was almost always deplorable because the rural communities had neither a
budget nor regular receipts to satisfy their momentary needs. In fact they had nothing but
temporary resources, supported by extraordinary taxes and ruinous expedients.
During the eighteenth century the temporal administration of the parish developed
and was complicated by virtue of the increased needs on the part of the royal treasury.
The duties of the assessors and collectors of the taxes became increasingly heavy. A
military syndic was created to provide for the lodging of troops, and a syndic for compulsory labor, assisted by deputies, to direct the difficult administration of compulsory
labor.
Moreover the parish administration was often directly under the supervision of the
state. For every municipal act the approval of the government was necessary. The syndics
were really the agents of the “intendant,” or governor, of the province who used them for
all administrative duties. The authority of the lord was exercised also over the rural parishes. Indeed, it was one of his officers (seneschal or fiscal attorney) who presided over
the deliberations of the general. Yet in the eighteenth century we witness the rural parishes
defending themselves quite vigorously against the usurpations of the lords, protesting
energetically against the encroachments upon the rights of the inhabitants, and engaging
in long-drawn-out and expensive suits against the noble proprietors.
The movement tending to increase the temporal functions of the parish administrations was bound to lead to the eventual separation of the spiritual and temporal. In this
respect the edict of June 25, 1787, establishing in the rural sections as well as in the cities
uniformly organized municipalities, was of great importance. In each community there
was established a council composed of the lord, the priest, and three, six or nine elective
members, depending upon the number of inhabitants. These members represented the
parochial assembly, for they were elected by secret ballot by all the inhabitants paying at
least 10 livres in real and personal taxes. The general assemblies were really nothing but
electoral assemblies. All in all, it was a genuine municipal organization, in the modern
sense of the term.
We see then that the peasants were beginning to take an active part in political life.
Irritated by the reaction of the lords, which marks the end of the ancien régime, they did
not hesitate to voice their claims loudly in the parish memorials of 1789. And when the
Revolution came, they forced the hand of the revolutionary assemblies, by petitions and
acts of violence, such as attacks upon castles and the burning of archives, and compelled them to abolish the manorial system and to make their lands completely autonomous.
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 35
The Peasant Question and Public Opinion
The reforms made by the Convention were destined to be radical, since they abolished
all manorial rights without indemnity. The question was settled forever.
But the revolutionary agitation was prepared by a powerful movement of public
opinion, which appeared particularly during the second half of the eighteenth century.
The physiocrats considered that the manorial system, because of all its harassing obstacles, was harmful to the progress of agricultural production. But their claims in this
matter were of a very abstract nature.
However, the kings of Sardinia, by their edicts of 1762, 1771 and 1778, freed the
peasants of Savoy of mortmain and decreed the abolition of the manorial dues. Hereupon Voltaire was encouraged to carry on his campaign in favor of the serfs of FrancheComté with more zeal. In one of his memorials he recalls that “the king of Sardinia has
freed all lands in Savoy of real and personal mortmain.”
Then in 1776 there appeared the celebrated pamphlet of Boncerf on “The Disadvantages of the Feudal Rights,” secretly encouraged by Turgot. In spite of his extreme
moderation—he demanded obligatory redemption only in the case of the successors of
the present lords,—he was condemned by the Parliament of Paris. Voltaire adhered fully
to the ideas of Boncerf and arose vigorously against the Parliament, denouncing its egotism:
“To propose the abolition of the feudal rights is tantamount to attacking the holdings
of the gentlemen of the Parliament themselves, most of whom possess fiefs. These gentlemen are therefore personally interested in protecting, defending and encouraging respect for the feudal rights. It is the case of the church, the nobility and the members of
Parliament. These three classes, too often opposed to one another, should unite against
the common enemy. The Church will excommunicate those authors who may undertake
the defense of the people, and will burn the authors as well as their writings. And by these
means the writings will be victoriously refuted.”
Jean Jacques Rousseau also did much to make the cause of the peasants popular. In
the “Nouvelle Héloise,” which enjoyed such a great measure of success, he steadfastly
contrasts the artificial luxury of Paris with the simple and sound customs of the country
folk. Saint Preux, traveling in Valais, admires the comfort and happiness of the mountaineers. He says: “Food is abundant, without any market toward the outside, and without
any show of luxury within; nor does the mountaineer planter, whose work is his pleasure,
become less industrious on that account.”
The true genius of the French people Rousseau finds not in Paris, but in the provinces and remote rural sections.
The feeling for nature which he helped so much to disseminate attracted the attention
of the city inhabitants to the rural population. The novel and the theatre began to depict in
an idealistic and somewhat misleading, insipid fashion, the rural customs. In the “Tales”
36 / Henri Sée
of Florian we meet only shepherds and shepherdesses. Marie Antoinette at Trianon posed
as a farmer’s wife. Although we should not ascribe to these manifestations of what would
today be called a new form of snobbishness, more importance than they deserve, yet we
should remember that to a certain extent they reveal the tendencies of a period.
Overwhelming Importance of the Peasant Question
The peasant question was bound to be of importance in a country in which the rural
population was numerically so important, where industry on a large scale was only in its
infancy, and where agricultural production was more important than all other branches.
Vauban had already said that “the real wealth of a kingdom lies in the abundance of its
supply of food, which is so necessary for human life.” Furthermore the population of a
country, and its rural population in particular, is one of its greatest assets. In the eighteenth century the interest which intelligent officials, as well as economists, took in agricultural questions, attracted attention to the condition of that class which alone tilled the
soil. In England during the same period it was the commercial and industrial questions
that attracted public notice more than anything else.
Works of Reference
In addition to the works of Loutchisky, See and Lefebvre mentioned in the previous
chapter, and the numerous memorials of 1789 (published in the Collection des Documents économiques de la Révolution), the following works should be consulted:
Sion, Les Paysans de la Normandie Orientale, Paris, 1909.
A. Demangeon, La Picardie, Paris, 1906.
R. Musset, Le Bas-Maine, Paris, 1917.
A. De Galonne, La vie agricole sous l’ancien régime dans le nord de la France, 3rd
éd., 1920. (Mémoires de la Société des Antiquaires de Picardie).
M. Marion, État des classes rurales dans la généralité de Bordeaux, 1902.
Soulgé, Le régime féodal et la propriété paysanne (in Forez), Paris, 1923.
A. Giffard, La justice seigneuriale en Bretagne, 1900.
Aulard, La Révolution française et le régime féodale, Paris, 1917.
Ph. Sagnac and Pierre Caron, Les Comités des droits féodaux et de législation et
l’abolition du régime seigneurial (Collection des Documents économiques de la
Révolution), 1906.
Max Bruchet, L’abolition du régime seigneurial en Savoie (same collection), 1908.
J. Letaconnoux, Les subsistances et le commerce des grains en Bretagne au XVIIIe
siècle, 1909.
Afanassiev, Le commerce des céréales en France au XVIIIe siècle, Paris, 1894.
Tarlé, L’Industrie rurale en France à la fin de l’ancien régime, Paris, 1910.
Laude, Les classes rurales en Artois à la fin de l’ancien régime, Lille, 1914 (reprinted
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 37
from the Revue du Nord).
F. Bourdais and R. Durand, L’industrie et le commerce de la toile en Bretagne sous
l’ancien régime (Comité des travaux historiques, Section d’histoire moderne, part
VII), 1922.
Celestin Port, Souvenirs d’un nonagénaire, Fr. Yves Bernard, Angers, 1880, 2 vols. in8°.
Babeau, La vie rurale sous l’ancien régime, 2nd éd., 1885.
Bussière, La Révolution dans le Périgord (especially vol. III), 1903.
H. Sée, La vie économique et les classes sociales en France au XVIIIe siècle, Paris,
1924.
———, Les troubles agraires en Haute-Bretagne (1790–1791) (Bulletin d’histoire
économique de la Révolution, 1919–1921), Paris, 1924.
Robert Latouche, La vie dans le Bas-Quercy du XIVe au XVIIIe siècle, Toulouse, 1923
(thesis for the degree of docteur-ès-lettres).
André Cholley, Les Préalpes de Savoie, Paris, 1921
(thesis for the degree of docteur-ès-lettres).
Ferdinand Brunot, Histoire de la langue française, vol. VII, Paris, 1926.
Chapter 3: The Clergy
The Estate of the Clergy
Although quite varying conditions can be found among them, the clergy constituted a
definite estate, in fact the only real estate existing in France during the ancien régime. The
special discipline to which all members were subjected and the celibacy which they were
forced to observe distinguished them as a class from the rest of the subjects. The clergy
had its special courts, the so-called officialities, which in the eighteenth century considered only purely spiritual cases arising from the sacraments, infractions of ecclesiastical
discipline, and also certain suits between members of the clergy.
The clergy as a class was alone represented before the king by an assembly, the
“assembly of the clergy.” It was instituted in the sixteenth century with a view to the
treasury, in order to have a body that could vote the contribution which the clergy was
expected to make to the king. It met every ten years to renew the concession relative to
the ordinary décimes, and every five years to vote the “gratuitous gift.” The deputies to
the general assembly were elected by the provincial assemblies, which met at the seat of
the various archbishoprics and were composed of the deputies of the suffragan dioceses. The provincial assembly designated two deputies of the first order (the high clergy)
and two of the second (low clergy), but the authority was in the hands of the first order.
The general assembly, beginning with the time of Louis XIV, accepted the demands of
the king without any real opposition, although it actually had the right to increase or
decrease the amount of the gift. The amount voted was assessed agains’c the various
dioceses. The diocesan offices in turn assessed the individual members of the clergy.
The general assemblies took charge also of the “defense of the faith,” called for
secular support against the heretics, especially the Protestants, condemned the books
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 39
that were contrary to religion, and dealt with all questions concerning the discipline and
organization of the Church and the maintenance of its privileges, and public instruction
(especially after the expulsion of the Jesuits). It is clear then how important for general
history are the Minutes of the Assemblies of the Clergy and the reports of its agents. The
assembly designated two general agents whose duty it was to defend the interests of the
estate and to manage its finances.
Even in temporal matters the clergy exercised great authority. It alone was in charge
of the registers of births, marriages and deaths, for the public register was in the hands of
the Church. It had absolute control over public instruction and charity. The parish assemblies were under the jurisdiction of the priests. It was the latter who gave notice of
edicts and proclaimed a monitory from the pulpit whenever a crime had been committed.
In short, secular society depended largely upon the ecclesiastical power.
Number of Ecclesiastics
This powerful class was not very numerous. The Royal Almanach indicates 135 bishoprics
and archbishoprics, and 34,658 charges. But the number of priests and vicars can be
estimated at about 60,000. There were 2800 prelates and canons of cathedrals, and 5600
canons of collegiate churches, not to mention 3000 ecclesiastics without benefices. In all
there were 71,000 secular priests. It is more difficult to determine the number of regulars
and monks of all kinds. It seems that their number did not exceed 60,000, and at the end
of the ancien régime this number was appreciably reduced.
The Property and Wealth of the Clergy
When we speak of the wealth of the clergy we must bear in mind their small number. They
comprised about 1.8 per cent of the population. We have already noted that the property
of the clergy amounted to 5 or 6 per cent of the territory at the most. The revenues from
this property did not exceed 80 or 100 millions. The tithes represented a more considerable sum, about 123 millions. But as will be seen presently, the distribution of this wealth
was very uneven.
Furthermore, in considering even the richest holdings of the clergy—the bishoprics,
chapters and abbeys—we are dealing only in rare cases with great domains held by a
single tenant. In general the ecclesiastical property was divided into rather small parcels,
composed particularly of isolated farms. Rebillon in his “Situation économique du clergé
dans les districts de Rennes, Fougères et Vitré” (Economie Condition of the Clergy in the
Districts of Rennes, Fougères and Vitré) has proved this quite clearly. All in all the rural
property of a bishopric and a chapter, as for example those of Rennes, seems insignificant. The bishopric of Rennes had an income of about 60,000 livres, but it enjoyed the
revenues from numerous tithes. As for the abbeys and their convents, their urban property was more considerable than their rural property. At Rennes they owned a great part
40 / Henri Sée
of the real estate and encompassed the entire city, so to speak. It would seem that everywhere in France similar conditions prevailed, even in such regions as the northern section, where the percentage of ecclesiastical property was greater than elsewhere.
Dues Paid by the Clergy
The dues represented by the décimes paid to the king, and the gratuitous gift seem very
small in comparison with the revenues we have mentioned. The décime ordinaire due the
king amounted only to 400,000 livres. The gratuitous gift was somewhat heavier and rose
continually at the end of the ancien régime. It was 16 millions in 1773, and 30 millions in
1780. On an average it amounted to 5,400,000 livres per year. But the clergy contracted
loans in order to pay these sums. This debt reached 134 millions in 1784. The king,
however, paid a part of the interest, namely 500,000 livres, until 1780, and thereafter one
million. From 1782 on he paid 2,500,000 livres. On the other hand, the clergy was exempt
from every other tax, also from the capitation and the twentieth taxes, which even the
nobility in part had to pay. The contributions of the clergy, Necker declares, are “less by
700,000 or 800,000 livres than what they would be if the clergy, enjoying the same privileges as the nobility, were subject to the ordinary system of distribution.” In the eighteenth century particularly, the State, pressed by need for money, tried to break down the
financial immunity of the clergy. Machault tried to make them subject to the twentieth
taxes, and directed his efforts first against the “foreign” clergy, that is the clergy of the
provinces considered foreign. Since they were not represented in the assemblies, he
thought that they would yield more readily to the exigencies of the royal treasury.
The High Clergy and the Nobility
During the seventeenth century we still find among the high clergy a certain number of
commoners, as Huet, Fléchier and Bossuet. But in the eighteenth century it was composed almost exclusively of nobles. The abbots, almost all nominated by the king, were
chosen well-nigh exclusively from among the nobility. Moreover 840 abbeys out of 1100
were granted in commendam, as the expression was, that is to a beneficed clergyman
who merely exercised the function and took for himself one-half or two-thirds of the
revenue of the abbey.
In short, the majority of the old lucrative abbeys were granted to favorities, and Taine
in his “Ancien Régime” says very aptly: “I have counted eighty-three abbeys possessed
by almoners, chaplains, preceptors or readers of the king, the queen, the princes or
princesses. One of them, the abbot of Vermont, has 80,000 livres of income in benefices.”
If we consider the diocesan seats we find that at the end of the ancien régime they
were all held by nobles. While during the reign of Louis XIV commoners such as Bossuet
could look forward to splendid ecclesiastical careers, a very competent priest in the
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 41
eighteenth century, the abbot Beauvais, obtained only with difficulty the wretched bishopric
of Senez. In 1789, as the abbot Sicard says, not a single bishop from the ranks of the
common people could be found. If we peruse the lists of bishops and archbishops of
this time we are confronted with the names of the highest and oldest families of France,
Montmorency, Rohan, La Rochefoucauld, Clermont-Tonnerre, and Talleyrand-Périgord,
while priests of the low or even the average nobility, as for example Boisgelin, secured
episcopal seats only with difficulty. If a man belonged to the high nobility, his career was
as a matter of course rapid and triumphant. Between the ages of thirty and forty he
became archbishop or bishop. A Luynes and a Rohan were even consecrated at twentysix. In certain families there was an accumulation of ecclesiastical dignities. Louis de
Rohan succeeded his uncle as bishop of Strasbourg. Three members of the La
Rochefoucauld family had the seats at Rouen, Beauvais and Saintes. These were lucrative benefices reserved for the younger sons of the great families. Even from infancy they
were groomed for the great dignities of the Church and tonsured without concern for
their vocation or natural leanings.
The Regular Clergy
During the first half of the seventeenth century the regular clergy had, as a result of the
Counter-Reformation, experienced an era of reform. Many new corporations were created. Among them were: in 1602 the friars of St. John of God, pledged to the care of the
sick; in 1606 the Ursulines, pledged to teaching; in 1608 the Capuchins; in 1611 the
Congregation of the Oratory was founded by Pierre de Bérulle for the instruction of
priests. Somewhat later came the Sisters of Calvary; the Visitandines; then the Lazaristes
or missionary priests; the Eudistes, who vowed to devote themselves to teaching; and in
1686 Baptiste de la Salle established the Congregation of the Friars of the Christian
Churches. In many cities there was a veritable beehive of religious orders, possessing
much real estate and often entire sections. At Dijon, for instance, there were a score of
religious orders, among them the abbey Saint-Étienne, the abbey Saint-Bénigne, the Holy
Chapel, the Chapel of the Rich, the Fathers of the Oratory, the Jesuits, the Carthusians,
the Gray Friars, the Capuchins, the Minims, the Ursulines, the Visitandines, the Bernardines,
the Carmelites, the Friars of Refuge, the Ladies of Saint Julien, the Jacobines, the House
of the Good Shepherd, the Lazaristes, etc.
But in the eighteenth century, especially during the second half, there was a growing
decadence, particularly from the point of view of morality. In the old contemplative or
mendicant orders there was a marked relaxation of discipline, and the discredit into which
the orders fell made it difficult to fill their ranks. The prelates themselves took a severe
attitude toward the monks. Thus Conzié, the archbishop of Tours, wrote in 1778: “The
Gray Friars are in a state of degradation in this province. The bishops are complaining of
the debauched, disorderly conduct of these friars.”
42 / Henri Sée
In 1765 the assembly of the clergy itself urged a reform among the regular clergy.
The government, without calling upon the authority of the Pope to interfere in a question
of internal order, established a “commission for the regulars” in 1766. It functioned until
1789. This commission suppressed several congregations, and in many cases joined into
one group monks scattered in various organizations. It reduced the number of monks
from 26,000 to 17,000. From 1770 to 1789 the number of Benedictines decreased from
6434 to 4300, and the number of Franciscans fell from 9820 to 6064. But the laxity of
morals continued. And it must be said in addition that many monks were favorable to the
new ideas, read the writings of the philosophers, and were impregnated with the new
doctrines. From among this class the constitutional clergy recruited most of its adherents
at the time of the Revolution.
The decadence was less felt among the new corporations, especially among those
composed of women, such as the Sisters of Charity, of Wisdom, and of the Good
Shepherd, who were engaged in the work of instruction and charity. Their material condition, too, was less prosperous. They possessed little real property and derived income
only from personal property. Their principal resources were furnished by alms and by
the support of pensioners. The old abbeys, on the other hand, often enjoyed considerable revenues.
The High Secular Clergy
In many cases the bishops possessed temporal power which conferred dignity and wealth
upon them. A considerable number can be named who held old ecclesiastical seigniories.
Thus the bishop of Strasbourg, who was prince-bishop of Strasburg and landgrave of
Alsace, had large domains in that province. They netted him an income of about 800,000
livres. The archbishop of Cambrai was duke of Cambrai, and his domains had a population of 75,000 inhabitants. The archbishop of Besançon, as bishop of Strasbourg, was a
prince of the Empire.
The bishops and archbishops received a great portion of the revenues of the clergy.
It seems, if the Royal Almanach is correct, that certain dioceses, especially in the southeast, were quite poor, netting only a few thousand livres. They were not very extensive,
either. Most of the bishoprics of Brittany had less than 30,000 livres in revenues. Yet it
seems that the official publications underestimated these revenues. However this may be,
some of the bishoprics brought their incumbents more than 40,000 livres in revenues.
That of Rennes netted almost 60,000; Condom, 70,000; Verdun, 74,000; Beauvais, 96,000;
and Strasbourg, the richest, 400,000. Most of the archbishoprics netted from 40,000 to
70,000 livres. Rouen brought 100,000; Albi, 120,000; Narbonne, 160,000; Paris, 200,000.
Moreover, the bishops possessed almost all the abbeys in commendam, which generally
almost doubled their revenue. Thus Berni, the archbishop of Albi, received 100,000 livres
in this way; Dillon, the archbishop of Narbonne, 120,000; La Rochefoucauld, the arch-
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 43
bishop of Rouen, 130,000. It is true that the prelates had to pay numerous pensions,
which diminished their income. The chapters, whether they depended upon a cathedral
or a collegiate, also enjoyed considerable privileges. Many canons had rich prebends,
without the obligation of heavy duties. Certain chapters were open only to nobles, as for
instance those of Strasbourg and Lyons. The aristocratic chapters for women bound
their incumbents only to temporary celibacy and to attendance at certain masses. It has
been said that “they repudiated all the spiritual disadvantages and preserved only the
material advantages.” They were merely “seminaries for marriageable young girls.” The
excessive privileges of the various chapters constituted one of the abuses against which
public opinion turned with increasing vehemence in the course of the eighteenth century.
Mode of Life among the High Clergy
A rather large number of bishops and archbishops had a great train of retainers, an open table,
a residence at Paris and a luxurious country home. Thus the cardinal of Brienne lived in the
style of a great lord on his domain at Brienne. Dillon, at Hautefontaine in Picardy, led a life of
pleasure rather than a religious life. He went on the hunt three times a week and attended the
theatre. At Saverne the cardinal de Rohan, bishop of Stras-burg, gave magnificent feasts at
which there were hundreds of guests.
No doubt such considerable pomp was rather unusual. But many prelates acquitted themselves of their duties in a very perfunctory manner. Often they preferred to reside at Paris,
rather than in their dioceses. In 1764 it was found that more than forty bishops lived in the
capital, and rarely there were less than a score there. Many prelates preached but seldom,
administered the sacraments only by proxy, made practically no pastoral visits and entrusted
the administration of their dioceses to their vicars general or to their suffragans.
The members of the high clergy were also reproached with acquitting themselves only
poorly of the obligations attached to their duties or arising from the tithes collected by them.
They were little concerned about the maintenance of religion and even less about their charitable duties. The great tithe-owners hardly helped the poor. This fact was often affirmed and
deplored by the parish clergy. But toward the end of the ancien régime a certain number of
prelates showed themselves more compassionate, used their funds for constructing hospitals
and arranged for the establishment of charitable offices in the rural sections. But only a minority, it seems, did this.
Instruction was in the hands of the clergy, who had absolute control over the public and
private schools and appointed the teachers. But the people’s schools were still very rare,
except in the eastern part of France. The instruction was very mediocre, and, as we have
already seen, the illiterates constituted the great majority of the rural population.
Hence it is not surprising that many of the memorials of 1789 demanded that the ecclesiastical resources be devoted to charity and education, and that the tithes “be allocated to the
purpose for which they were originally intended.”
44 / Henri Sée
The Administrative Bishops
Nevertheless, toward the end of the ancien régime a certain number of bishops became
interested in the temporal administration of the region in which their episcopal seat was
located. In the sections of the Estates, in Brittany and more particularly in Languedoc,
they took an active part in the assemblies of the province. In the latter province many
bishops engaged in the construction of roads, the cultivation of fallow land and the
development of the canals.
Champion de Cicé, first bishop of Rodez and later archbishop of Bordeaux, distinguished himself as an administrator, and at the time of the Constituent Assembly was
appointed guardian of the seals. The archbishop of Toulouse, Lomenie de Brienne, had
done useful work in his diocese before becoming prime minister toward the end of the
monarchy. Boisgelin, the archbishop of Aix, was also a competent administrator and
enjoyed great popularity in Provence on the eve of the Revolution. Champion de Cicé
and Boisgelin represented the liberal tendency among the high clergy. They were partisans of that “episcopal Gallicanism” which succeeded in spreading during the Napoleonic era under the régime of the Concordat. They were destined to form the bond
between the clergy of the ancien régime and that of contemporary France.
Another type of administrative bishop, but quite different from Boisgelin and Champion de Cicé, was J. F. de la Marche, bishop of Saint-Pol de Léon. He played an important part in all the sessions of the Estates of Brittany, where he showed remarkable resourcefulness, to the great advantage of his class. Several times he exerted himself to
smooth over the disagreements arising between the nobility and the third estate, and
between the assembly and the royal government. At several sessions he presided with
great efficiency over the commission on finances. Quite unlike Boisgelin and Champion
de Cicé, he hardly ever visited the royal court. For twenty years he resided almost without interruption in his diocese. He devoted himself conscientiously to his episcopal duties, making his pastoral visits regularly, watching over the progress of ecclesiastical
studies and the training of priests, and reestablishing, in great part out of his own resources, the college Saint-Pol de Léon. He was also interested in charity and tried to
create new charitable institutions. No doubt the case of Mgr. de la Marche was not as
exceptional as might be believed, but the prelates who did their duties conscientiously
did not appeal so much to the imagination of their contemporaries as those brilliant
churchmen whose sumptuous feasts attracted attention. Furthermore they were not won
over by the liberal ideas and did not flatter public opinion. Mgr. de la Marche did not tire
of opposing the new order of things, and of showing his hostility to all projects of
reform. He was one of the most ardent opponents of the Civil Constitution; among the
emigre priests at London he represented the party of irreconcilables; he refused to recognize the Concordat; and he died embittered and in exile.
Indeed, we must not be deceived with regard to the liberalism of the high clergy.
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 45
They protested almost as a body against the concession of civil status to the Protestants.
If they rose against despotism, it was because they felt that their privileges were endangered by progressive ministers. Even upon the eve of the Revolution they assumed a
haughty attitude toward the lower clergy.
The Low Clergy
The low clergy did not by any means form a single class. “We distinguish essentially
between the vicars, the curates and the habituated priests.
Among the vicars some were in easy circumstances, especially those living in the
cities, who were assured a revenue from the surplice fees. But many depended only upon
the insignificant tithes that the great tithe-collectors gave them. In the districts of Rennes,
Fougères and Vitré, Rébillon has proved that 44 rectors had an income less than 1000
livres, while 56 received from 1000 to 2000 livres per year, 30 from 2000 to 4000, and
only 14 a sum greater than 4000 livres. Many priests had only their congruous portion to
live upon. Fixed by the declaration of 1686 at 300 livres for vicars, and by the declaration
of 1768 at 500 livres for vicars and 200 for curates, this congruous portion was, in 1786,
increased to 750 livres for the former class and 300 livres for the latter. But at the end of
the ancien régime the cost of living had increased considerably. The congruists lived in
poverty.
The curates, most of whom had no prospect of ever obtaining a charge, formed a
veritable ecclesiastical proletariat, upon whom all the parish duties usually fell. And the
habituated priests, who lived upon a few foundations and from the income of a few
masses, were even more abject.
The low clergy, so poorly remunerated, was responsible for a goodly share of the
ordinary and extraordinary dues that the clergy as a class had to pay the king. There was
the greatest possible inequality in distribution, not only between the high and the low
clergy, but also between the different ranks of the low clergy, although the congruists
were generally spared.
Life of the Low Clergy According to a Contemporary
A canon of the abbey of Beauport, situated in the diocese of Saint-Brieuc, has left us a
very vivid description of the condition of the low clergy in that part of Brittany:
“Most of the charges of Normandy were amply endowed, but ours were generally
poor or mediocre... Some charges, however, received tithes, but a small number in comparison with the congruists, and almost always in the small parishes, where the value of
the tithe was often only the equivalent of the portion...
“In Tréguier there were perhaps ten charges from 100 louis to 4000 livres. They were
also considered as places of favor and were usually held by nobles. They were called
parishes of abbots whom the Revolution dispossessed...
46 / Henri Sée
“Saint-Brieuc had few parishes in which the tithe and the surplice fees netted a thousand écus to the incumbent. Six or seven were appointed, of which two were held by
nobles and two by regulars. Some brought in 100 louis, or 2000 livres, others from 1500
to 1800 livres, and they were considered very good. The mediocre ones ran from 1200 to
1500 livres, and the greatest number from 1000 to 1200 livres. There were some that
brought even less. Where the charge netted only the congruous portion of 500 livres, it
was necessary, in order to double the sum, that beside the 180 livres to which his masses
(at the rate of 12 sols per mass) amounted, the vicar should derive 320 livres from the
church, either through a third of the oblations, which were usually negligible, or in baptisms (at the rate of six or eight sols per baptism), in marriages at the rate of 40 sols, and
in fees, burials and attendance at services, fixed at 16 sols, which depended upon the
prosperity of the population of the parishes.
“This was the lot of our vicars and the outlook of their curates before the Revolution. Happy in a situation in which, after ten or twelve years of faithful service and good
conduct, they finally obtained a parish, they were then compelled to settle down and fit
out a home. For this purpose their small savings hardly sufficed, and they were compelled to contract debts on the strength of their future earnings. Nephews, nieces and
parents frequently came to the vicarage, for a vicar was naturally considered a man of
affluence and the natural means of support of his relatives. There was indeed much
misery, even in the better parishes, unless they were managed with great order and
economy.”
Relations of the Low Clergy and the High Clergy
The low clergy did not participate in any way in the administration of their class. In the
diocesan assemblies, gathered for the apportionment of the tithes that had to be raised
for the king, the parish priests took a part only under exceptional conditions, and never
as representatives of their confrères. In the assemblies of Estates, in Brittany and
Languedoc, they did not have a share in the election of the deputies of the clergy.
Only rarely did the bishops pay any attention to the vicars of their diocese. They felt
that the latter belonged to another race than themselves. They never received them at their
table. A bishop who otherwise was well disposed to his vicars, declared: “they are coarse,
shabby and ignorant, and one must be fond of the odor of garlic in order to feel happy in
the society of those who ponder heaven and earth.”
The Grievances of the Low Clergy
At the end of the ancien régime the vicars began to revolt against this attitude of their
bishops and to compare their miserable lot with the opulence of their superiors. The
vicar of Marolles in Normandy, writing in 1789, expressed the feelings of many of his
confrères:
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 47
“We, unfortunate vicars living upon congruous portions, we, usually entrusted with
the largest parishes, we, whose lot cries out to the stones and rafters of our miserable
vicarages, we must tolerate prelates who would prosecute through their guards a poor
vicar cutting a cane in their forests, for support on his long journeys over the highways....
When they pass, the vicar is obliged to fall to the ground and lie supinely upon the
hillside, to protect himself against the hoofs and the mud-splashing of their horses, and
also against the wheels, or perhaps the whip of an insolent driver. And then, all dirty, with
his wretched cane in the one hand, and his old hat in the other, he must greet, humbly and
speedily, through the curtain of the closed and gilded carriage, the puffed-up prelate who
is snoring upon the wool of the herd that the poor vicar pastures and of which he may
keep only the dung and the grease.”
Several times the vicars ventured to assemble in order to draw up their claims, and
especially to ask for an increase of their congruous portion. This was done for example
by the vicars of Provence and Dauphiné in 1779. In vain did the bishops in 1782 obtain
from the king a declaration forbidding the vicars to hold meetings. The low clergy showed
itself increasingly hostile to the high clergy and increasingly favorable to the claims of the
third estate. This is revealed in the pamphlet that appeared upon the eve of the Revolution, bearing the title: “Les curés du Dauphiné à leurs confrères les recteurs de Bretagne”
(The vicars of Dauphiné to their confrères, the rectors of Brittany). In it is found the
following characteristic passage:
“The bishops are the heads of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, but in civil and political
matters they are only citizens like ourselves.... Let them leave to us the right of having our
own feelings.... The interest of the people and that of the vicars are inseparable. If the
people suffer oppression, the vicars suffer degradation at the hands of the high clergy.”
The Vicars and the Elections to the States General
These sentiments were bound to make themselves felt at the time the States General met.
To be sure, only a few of the memorials drawn up by the low clergy have come down to
us. The diocesan assemblies, in which the high clergy prevailed, were not interested in
preserving them. Nevertheless a few have been preserved. We have, for instance, those
of the vicars of the bailiwick of Auxerre, which will be published soon. We have also the
memorials of members of the low clergy of Brittany, who felt that if the high clergy
deemed it necessary to hold their electoral assembly apart (at Saint-Brieuc), they too
should form diocesan assemblies in which they might elect deputies. The principal claims
of the memorial of the diocese of Rennes, for example, are as follows:
“That in future no other distinctions but those of hierarchy be recognized among the
clergy. Thus there will disappear a great number of abuses that are striking and revolting
to everyone.”
The memorial demanded also the remedy of those abuses that were slurred over in
48 / Henri Sée
the election of bishops and the collation of benefices. But the thing that concerned the
vicars of the diocese of Rennes particularly was the question of the tithes:
“That the tithes, collected from the pastors and the poor, be restored to them eventually, because they are the only ones who can legitimately possess them.”
The memorial demanded also that the “regular corporations” be indemnified by the
“pooling of the simple benefices.” Also that provision be made for the congruist rectors.
In a word, the demand was made that a “more equal distribution of the ecclesiastical
wealth” be made.
Furthermore ecclesiastical dignities should no longer be granted to favorites: “That
the canonicates and the dignities of the cathedrals be granted in future only to those who
have devoted their lives diligently to the ministry.” It was demanded that the clergy of the
kingdom should renounce all financial privileges. But if the décimes to be paid to the king
were to be continued, the rolls should be sent to all contributors, for they can not be
refused “either the right or the means of judging the actions of those who represent
them.”
So far as “civil and political affairs” were concerned, the clergy of the diocese of
Rennes expressed desires similar to those of the third estate. They demanded periodical
meetings of the States General, the abolition of the present taxes, the establishment of a
constitution, the equality of political rights, “without class distinction,” and the equality
of all in the face of “the public dues” in proportion to the ability of each to pay. Also that
the individual liberty of the citizens be guaranteed, and that “the lettres de cachet and all
other arbitrary orders be abolished.” Furthermore that commerce be freed from all embarrassments on the part of the royal fisc and the monopoly.” Just as the memorials of
the peasants, so those of the clergy too demanded the employment, in the rural sections,
of trained, competent midwives. Finally they demanded that, “in order to regenerate the
French people, there should be an effort made to improve education, both in the cities
and in the rural sections as well.”
This shows clearly the rôle that was to be played by the vicars elected to the States
General. It was they who, by deserting the ranks of the clergy and joining the third estate,
decided the fate of the Revolution and assured the triumph of the National Assembly.
And only after the Civil Constitution had been granted did a considerable part of the low
clergy refuse to recognize it and abandon the cause of the Revolution.
Works of Reference
Collection des procès-verbaux des assemblées du clergé de France depuis 1560, 1777–
1780, 9 volumes, folio.
Cans, L’organisation financière du. clergé, 1909.
G. Lepointe, L’organisation et la politique financière du clergé de France pendant le
règne de Louis XV, Paris, 1924, in-8°.
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 49
Mention, Documents relatifs aux relations du clergé et de la royauté de 1682 à 1789,
2 vols, 1893–1903.
H. Taine, L’ancien régime, 1875.
E. La Visse, Histoire de France, vol. IX.
A. Rebillon, La situation économique du clergé dans les districts de Rennes, Fougères
et Vitré, 1913 (Collection des Documents économiques de la Révolution).
Abbot L. Kerbiriou, Jean-François de la Marche, évêque-comte de Léon (1729–1806),
Paris, 1924.
Chassin, Les cahiers des curés, Paris, 1882.
M. Marion, La vente des biens nationaux, Paris, 1908.
L. Dubreuil, La vente des biens nationaux dans les Côtes-du-Nord, Paris, 1913.
Abbot Sicard, L’ancien clergé de France, 2 vols., 1893–1894.
Gérin, La Commission des réguliers (Revue des Questions historiques, 1875–1877).
Cardinal Mathieu, L’ancien régime dans les provinces de Loraine et Barrois, 2nd édition,
1907.
Lévy-Schneider, L’application du Concordat par un prélat d’ancien régime, Mgr.
Champion de Cicé, Paris, 1922.
Abbot Lavaquery, Le cardinal Boisgelin, 2 vols., Paris, 1921.
Laveille, Les revenus du clergé breton avant la Révolution (Revue des questions
historiques, October, 1912).
H. Sée and A. Lesort, Cahiers de doléances de la sénéchaussée de Rennes, vol. IV,
1912 (Collection des Documents économiques de la Révolution).
B. Pocquet du Haut-Jussé, La vie temporelle des communautés de femmes à Rennes
aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles (reprinted from the Annales de Bretagne, vols. 31 and 32).
Chapter 4: The Nobility
The Sources of the Nobility
In theory the basis of nobility is birth. A man is noble “by birth” if he can trace his nobility
back four generations at least. And a nobleman’s reputation depends upon the number of
noble ancestors to whom he can point.
Yet the nobility of the time included a more or less considerable number of newly
created nobles. This had always been the case. During the early days of feudalism the
man who could arm himself and serve as a horseman became a vassal of the leader in
war, no matter what his origin may have been. His services were rewarded by the concession of a fief. The owners of fiefs then claimed that they formed a closed class; nevertheless they had to admit into their ranks those who had acquired lands of the nobility or had
been ennobled by a prince or the king.
Patents of nobility that were usually purchased for money became increasingly numerous from the sixteenth century on. Under Louis XIV the cash (finance) paid by the
candidate was only 6000 livres. And, as Voltaire says in his “Essai sur les mœurs” (Essay
on Customs), “a huge number of citizens, bankers, surgeons, merchants, servants of
princes, and clerks obtained patents of nobility” and laid the foundations for noble families.
There were also numerous offices and functions of state that brought with them
hereditary nobility, for example the positions of chancellor, guardian of the seal, secretary of state, governor, commandant in chief, and presiding judge of the sovereign courts.
The offices of the high bench eventually also conferred nobility upon their incumbents.
Thus in the eighteenth century almost all the members of the parliaments were noblemen,
and the rule became established, particularly in Brittany, that the magistracies could be
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 51
conferred only upon members of the nobility. Even positions that were practically superfluous, as those of the secretaries of the king, which were sinecures, conferred nobility,
and, as Necker declares, they were very numerous, there being over 900 of them. To be
sure, they cost 120,000 livres, but they made it possible for every commoner who had
become wealthy to join the ranks of the nobility. The same is true of the positions in the
offices of the finances, numbering 740. The very numerous municipal posts also conferred nobility as a general rule. The nobility of the judicial gown and that of the bell, at
first distinct from the nobility of the sword, were finally confused with it.
Lastly one could secure a patent of nobility by acquiring a nobleman’s estate, that is,
a manor. The possession of manorial rights conferred nobility in the long run, although
the ordinance of Blois, issued in May, 1579, prohibited this. But as a matter of fact, the
commoners assumed the names of the fiefs that belonged to them and thus gradually
usurped the title of nobility.
Ever since the Middle Ages there had been a slow accession, on the part of the third
estate, to the nobility. Mireur, in his “Tiers état à Dragui-gnan” (The Third Estate at
Draguignan), shows that of 25 enfeoffed families in this city, 18 came from the common
people in 1789. Frequently the merchants, who were among the richest class of artisans,
prepared their sons for judicial positions conferring nobility. Roupnel, in his interesting
work “Populations du pays dijonnais” (The People of the Region of Dijon), shows clearly
the unstable condition of the noble families.
The old military nobility, as well as the administrative nobility of the fifteenth century,
disappeared to a large extent. They were replaced almost entirely by a new nobility, in
great part of parliamentary origin. But most of the high magistrates came from families of
rich merchants of Dijon, or from the towns of the province. In the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries the barriers between the various social classes were much less absolute than at
the time of Louis XIV. From the seventeenth century on these classes tended to form
closed castes.
The “Reformation” of the Nobility
It is true that several times the royal power tried to take steps against the “usurpers”
of nobility by instituting reforms. This was done in the sixteenth century and more frequently still in the seventeenth, particularly during the reign of Louis XIV. But these were
mostly fiscal measures. There were stricken from the lists of the nobility all those who
“derogated,” that is, those who devoted themselves to commerce, although Colbert had
in 1669 granted them the right to engage in maritime commerce without prejudice to their
standing. Those too were excluded whom poverty prevented from asserting their claims
and from paying the dues involved. The magistrates, who furnished most of the members of the committees of reform, were usually members of the parliaments. Especially in
Brittany they proved very obliging toward their colleagues and very harsh toward the
52 / Henri Sée
judges of the lower courts. During this time patents of nobility continued to be granted
for a pecuniary consideration. The principal effect of the reforms was to make the nobility an idle class that could find only in the army an occupation compatible with its dignity.
The chasm separating the nobility and the third estate became ever greater. This conclusion is reached particularly in a recent searching study by Bourde de la Rogerie on the
reform of the nobility in Brittany. At the end of the ancien régime d’Hozier, by his
decisions on the quarters of the nobility, had at his mercy all those who aspired to military
preferment.
In reality all men who acquired a notable fortune succeeded in getting into the ranks
of the nobility, a privilege which conferred all sorts of advantages upon them, especially
of a pecuniary nature. In 1776 Turgot was able to declare very justly that the “body of
nobles,” exempt from all dues imposed upon commoners, comprised “the whole body
of the rich,” and that “the case of the privileged has become the case of the rich against
the poor.” All these new nobles, as is always the case in such instances, were more
insistent upon their rights and more spoiled by their titles of honor than the nobles of
ancient lineage.
Number of Nobles
After all we have said it may be seen how difficult it is to fix the number of the nobles
during the ancien régime. The most reliable estimate is that of the abbot Coyer in his
“Noblesse commerçante” (Commercial Nobility) of 1756; the Marquis de Bouille, in his
“Mémoires” also gives dependable figures. These sources state that there were 80,000
noble families comprising about 400,000 individuals. But no statistics are available, and
it is impossible to determine an exact figure, as could be done in the case of the clergy.
The Privileges of the Nobility
These privileges were numerous and important. In the first place, the majority of the
nobles were lords of fiefs and by virtue thereof, regardless of their financial condition,
they enjoyed manorial privileges, the nature and character of which have already been
described. Some lords, almost deprived of their immediate domain, possessed only the
manorial dues as a means of livelihood, and hence they insisted upon them all the more
strenuously.
With the manorial rights were connected the “honorary preeminences,” such as the
right of having a coat of arms, a lord’s bench in the parish church, and special vaults or
enjeux. These preeminences are more important than would ordinarily be expected. They
led to many suits between lords and caused discontent among the parishioners. It is not
surprising that during the time of the Revolution the agrarian troubles often began by the
destruction of the lords’ benches, their coats of arms, and their vanes.
More important still were the exemptions from obligations to the royal treasury which
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 53
the nobility enjoyed. Nobles were exempt from the taille, from forced labor on the highways, from the billeting of troops, etc. When the king, pressed by need of money, created new taxes, such as the capitation and the twentieth tax, which were supposed to
affect all his subjects, we can understand the efforts of the nobles to secure exemption
therefrom, or at least to pay them only in part. In fact, a special capitation roll was drawn
up for the nobles; and, so far as the twentieth tax was concerned, the nobles did not pay
it in proportion to their income, in spite of the verification of the rolls at the end of the
ancien régime.
With regard to justice, the nobles were compelled to appear only before the bailiffs
and seneschals, and when accused of a crime their cases were judged by the parliaments.
When condemned to death, they had the privilege of escaping hanging. They could only
be “decapitated.”
Finally, as we know, the rich ecclesiastical benefices, the prelacies and also the high
military positions were reserved to the nobles. In many noble families the younger sons
were tonsured, and it was hoped that the benefices to be conferred upon them would
remain in their possession, even if they should renounce the ecclesiastical career.
Various Categories among the Nobility. Those Presented at Court
The nobility did not form a homogeneous class. There were privileged lords and others.
In the first place there were those who had been presented to the king and queen.
“The presentation of men,” says Carré in his book “Noblesse de France et l’opinion
publique au XVIIIe siècle (The Nobility of France and Public Opinion in the Eighteenth
Century), “consisted in hunting with the king, riding his horses and driving in his carriages.” The woman “admitted in presentation” offered her cheeks to the king, the queen,
the dauphin and the princes. Toward the end of the ancien régime there were 4000
families that had been presented, representing about 20,000 persons. A regulation of
1760 endeavored to limit the number by decreeing that in order to be presented the
candidate must belong to a family tracing its ancestry back to the year 1400. But if this
had been applied rigorously, more than one-third of the families admitted to court would
have had to be excluded. Hence Louis XV personally decided in 1774 that only the king
himself could determine who should be presented.
Indeed under Louis XVI there were more presentations than ever. Many provincial
noblemen coveted this honor. Thus Chateaubriand was presented to Louis XVI in 1787.
He gives a picturesque description of the scene in his “Mémoires d’Outre-tombe” (Memoirs from Beyond the Grave).
The presentation was not only an honor. It conferred considerable advantages, especially in the army. It made it easy to intrigue for high military offices. With all the merit
and efficiency in the world, one could not pass beyond the rank of colonel, unless one
had been presented at court. Carré tells us the following:
54 / Henri Sée
“A lieutenant of infantry by the name of Montfalcon, although cited by the Maréchal
de Ségur, was given little or no preferment. He was made chevalier de Saint-Louis and
major of a small garrison, but there he stopped because he had not been ‘presented.’
Then near Nîmes he discovered at the house of an aunt a bundle of documents proving
that he was descended from the old family of Adhémar. He hurried to Paris, submitted
his documents to Chérin, who declared them authentic. He was ‘presented’ and became
colonel. Then, since he was polished and well-bred, and had the manners of a man of the
world, he married a rich widow, a lady of honor of the Dauphiness, and presently he
became a minister of Louis XVI at Brussels.”
We see then that under Louis XVI there was a “rage” among the provincial noblemen
to be presented. Chérin states this in so many words in his book “La noblesse considérée
dans ses divers rapports” (The Nobility considered in its various Aspects), published in
1788. He says: “A nobleman is esteemed less by what he is worth than by the number of
years of nobility that he can point to.... In certain classes of society it is the practise to
receive only persons that have been presented and to bar absolutely all others, no matter
how good or honorable they may be.” Again in 1781 it was decided to admit as officers
only such nobles as could prove one hundred per cent nobility. Hence the increasing
hostility of the provincial nobility against the court nobility can readily be explained.
The Court Nobility
The greatest privileges and most lucrative offices and pensions went to the court nobility.
In this class fortunes enjoying an income of between 100,000 and 150,000 livres
were frequent, and many ran considerably higher. The Duke of Orleans, grandson of the
Regent, had three millions in revenue in 1753. During the time of Louis XVI the house of
Orleans, allied with that of Penthièvre, enjoyed an income of about eight millions. The
income of the house of Condé during the eighteenth century is estimated at 1,500,000
livres, and that of the Conti at 600,000 livres. The Dukes of Bouillon and Mortemart had
incomes of 500,000 livres. The Dukes of Chevreuse had 400,000; the Duke of Grammont,
300,000; the Duke of La Tremoille, 200,000; the Marquis of Villette, 150,000. The nobility of the robe also boasted of great fortunes. The family of Le Pelletier de Saint-Fargeau
had an income of 600,000 livres; the presiding judge d’Aligre, it is said, had a fortune of
six or seven millions. The families of Eprémesnil, Joly de Fleury, and Hérault de Séchelles
were also very wealthy.
Moreover the families of the high nobility often refurbished their coats of arms by
contracting alliances with families in the financial world. “We cite the wealth of a Samuel
Bernard (33 millions), a Bouret (42 millions), a Paris de Montmartel (100 millions), a
Lenormand de Tournehem (20 millions). Not only the daughters of financiers married
nobles, but often the financiers were ennobled and thus founded noble families.
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 55
The Mode of Life among the High Nobility
Many members of the high nobility led a very pompous, ruinous life. The memoirs of the
time reveal the luxury in garments and robes, for the clothing of the men rivaled that of the
women in costly ornaments. It is easy to imagine the value of garments made of silver or
gold cloth and trimmed with Spanish lace. Ball robes frequently cost 1500 or 2000 livres.
And the brides’ trousseaux were very expensive. That of Mlle, de la Briffe, daughter of
the first president of the parliament of Brittany, was estimated at more than 21,000 livres
in 1781; that of Mlle. Billon, 45,000 in 1787; that of Mlle, de Mondragon, 100,000 in
1784.
The court nobility boasted of having the finest horses and the most elegant carriages,
often upholstered in velvet and decorated with painted panels. Luxury at table was particularly striven for by the magistrates and financiers. An army of servants was employed. It was nothing unusual to find in a nobleman’s house from 30 to 40 men-servants, not to mention the chambermaids and stewards. Finally it was fashionable to support mistresses, who received sumptuous pensions, not to mention presents. The actor
Fleury says:
“The prince of Soubise was not content to throw gold in the path of his queens of
the boudoir—there were a dozen of them—; since he gave each one of them the same
household, the same livery and an equipage of the same kind, people remarked when
they saw the carriages of his mistresses passing: Here comes the family of Soubise!”
When the president de Rieux dismissed Camargo in 1743 he gave him a present of
120,000 livres.
The receptions in high society were no less expensive, regardless of whether they
were given in conjunction with balls, dinners, theatrical performances or hunts. A supper
to which the prince of Soubise invited the king at Saint-Ouen in 1749 cost no less than
200,000 livres. Choiseul, both at Paris and at his residence in Chanteloup, kept an open
table. He received guests every evening and gave suppers and concerts. His mode of
living was such that his income of 800,000 livres was hardly sufficient. At Chantilly, on
the admirable estate of the Condé family, there were numerous splendid feasts.
Life in the château was indeed quite as expensive as life at Paris. The splendors of
the château of Sceaux, the residence of the Duchess of Chambord, of Maine, have often
been described. It belonged to the Maréchal of Saxe. The château of Pontchartrain,
where Maurepas held a veritable court, and that of Chanteloup were no less attractive.
No less splendid was the château of Brienne, where the count of Brienne and his brother,
the archbishop, gave sumptuous feasts. Henri Carré says:
“One reached the château of Brienne by a long avenue lined with lime-trees, lilacs
and lawns. In the ground floor were the reception rooms, a dining room for eighty persons, a great salon overlooking the avenue and the gardens, a billiard room, a library with
circular galleries, a museum of natural history, a laboratory for experimental physics, and
56 / Henri Sée
a theatre that could be transformed into a ballroom by lowering the stage to the level of
the floor. The ground floor contained also an apartment for the countess. In the basement below there was a ballroom for the servants. In front of the château, on the side of
the court of honor, there were two large pavilions divided into separate compartments.”
At Brunoy near Paris the financier Paris de Montmartel expended 10 millions. At
Méréville, in Beauce, the banker de la Borde spent 14 millions in order to make an English
park.
In all these residences, as well as in the less pretentious country homes, there were
endless feasts, theatrical performances and magnificent hunts. The Marquis de Mirabeau
correctly states in his “Ami des hommes” (Friend of Men) that “by the life that they lead
in their châteaux the great lords ruin the peasants as well as themselves.”
The richest of them were deeply in debt. “When they died in 1740 and 1741 respectively, the Duke of Bourbon and the Prince of Carignan owed five millions each. About
1750 the Duke of Antin owed 900,000 livres. In 1785 Choiseul left debts to the amount of
six millions. Some could not meet their obligations and aroused widespread attention by
going into bankruptcy. Thus the prince of Guéméne became a bankrupt with liabilities
amounting to 32 millions. Many Parisian judges, too, as for example the presiding judges
de Mesmes and Maupeou, were ruined because of their desire to live the lives of great
lords.
The Royal Pensions
It is no wonder then that the high nobility sought to increase its revenues by begging for
pensions. The princes of blood were the first to receive pensions. The Count of Toulouse, who had an income of 1,700,000 livres, drew 100,000 livres from the Treasury
besides. The Prince of Condé, whose enormous fortune we have mentioned, received
260,000 livres per year from this source. The Duke of Chartres, son of the Duke of
Orléans, drew a pension of 150,000 livres in 1747. Under the reign of Louis XVI, the
Count of Artois and the Count of Provence received 37 and 29 millions, respectively, in
order to pay their debts.
We pass over the rich pensions paid to former ministers. To a certain extent they
may be regarded as remuneration for services rendered. But there was less justification
for Mme. de Pompadour to have large pensions granted to the members of her family
and to her friends, or for the king to grant rich endowments to the daughters of favorites
at the time of their marriage. During the reign of Louis XV the Noailles secured pension
after pension. The Marquise of Lambert, worth four millions, took a pension of 5000
livres in 1745. In the reign of Louis XVI the princess of Lamballe, the friend of MarieAntoinette, received enormous sums in pensions and salaries.
The Polignac family proved more grasping still. In 1779 the count of Mercy wrote to
the mother of the queen, the Empress Maria Theresa:
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 57
“For four years the Polignac family, without having rendered any service to the king
and by favor pure and simple, has been receiving, in emoluments and other benefits,
almost 500,000 livres per year. All the deserving families are protesting against the injustice of such a dispensation of favors....”
Indeed the Polignac family secured 700,000 livres in pensions, not counting various
gratuities.
When at the time of the Revolution the Red Book revealed the startling sum of
pensions granted to the favorites of the court, the hatred against the ancien régime
naturally increased, and cries of anger arose against this useless aristocracy, against these
parasites, for whose foolish extravagances the royal treasury had to pay.
The Consequences of the High Life of the Nobility
The society life, favored by the ostentatiousness of the high aristocracy, led indirectly to
the Revolution. Its effect was to bring the ancient nobility of the sword into close contact
with the nobility of the lawyer’s gown and the financial world. The presiding judge de
Mesmes, and the judges Chau-velin and Le Pelletier, kept an open table, and the highest
lords were present at their receptions. The presiding judge Hénault, married to the daughter of a financier, was the intimate of the Duchess of Maine, and associated with the
families of Nivernais, Brancas and Maurepas. The family of Dufort de Cheverny—belonging to the nobility of the gown—had intercourse with persons of the highest nobility.
The financial world also associated more and more with the ancient aristocracy. The
receptions of the farmer general de la Popelinière, of Mme. d’Epinay, and of Grimod de
la Reynière were well attended. The salons of the wealthy aristocracy brought together
liberal-minded nobles and illustrious writers, the “philosophers,” whose ideas exercised
so great an influence upon French society during the eighteenth century. By their manners
and ideas a part of the high Parisian nobility were beginning to become déclassé at the
very time when the social hierarchy seemed more absolute and more rigid than ever.
The Provincial Nobility. Diversity of Conditions
If we consider the nobility that had not been presented and that lived in the provinces, we
find a great diversity of conditions. The extent and importance of the landed estates of
these lords differed considerably. Let us take for example Brittany. Certain lords owned
the greater part of a number of parishes there. Thus the barony of Sens, not far from
Rennes, comprised not only the entire parish of Sens, but also the greater part of the
parishes of Vieuxvy and Romazy. Similarly the manor of Martinière and Montbarot, the
dependencies of which abounded in the entire region north of Rennes. Finally we mention the manor of Saint-Brice, which was formed by the fusion of seven or eight estates.
In this way the estates of nobles were sometimes merged.
Medium-sized and small manors were infinitely more numerous than large ones. It
58 / Henri Sée
was not unusual for a parish to contain several. The parishes of Tremblay and Beauce
each comprised six; in Landéan there were seven; in Carentoir, fifteen. Apparently many
of the manors were rather small, with only two or three farm-houses. Some of them had
only an immediate domain of about twenty hectares.
This is the reason why the economic condition of the noble proprietors varied infinitely. Let us consider the amount of income of various manors, still taking Brittany as an
example. Sometimes it is rather high. The marquisate of Romilley and the barony of
Tiercent each brought 42,000 livres income. The count of Villetehart had a revenue of
36,000 livres, while the marquis of Château-giron had 124,000 livres. But those manors
of which the income was less than 10,000 livres were much more numerous. The manor
of Launay-Quinart brought only 7500 livres, and that of Sion 5500 livres. Many others
were worth not more than 4000 livres in income. Finally many small manors hardly produced 1000 livres, as for example that of Espinaye, the immediate domain of which
contained only 60 journaux (less than 30 hectares), and which netted only 900 livres.
Hence it is easy to see that there was a very numerous petty nobility in miserable circumstances. Perhaps this is more striking in Brittany than elsewhere, but everywhere there
existed a poor nobility whose existence was very precarious.
Consequently living conditions varied infinitely among the nobility. This appears
from the inventories after death. The personal property of the marquis of Châteaugiron
was estimated at 112,828 livres in 1762, and the inventory describes the luxurious furnishings of this nobleman, both at Rennes and in the country. The furnishings of the
château of Gage are valued only at 12,734 livres. They were comfortable but simple. On
the other hand, the homes of the poor nobles were hardly better furnished than the homes
of the peasants.
The Average Nobility
There also lived in the French provinces a nobility in comfortable circumstances that
continued to reside on its estates during a part of the year at least, but frequently possessed homes in the city, too. Many of these nobles led a social life which reminds one
somewhat of life at court or in the salons of the Parisian nobles. During the winter there
took place in the “capital” cities, such as Strasbourg, Dijon, Rennes, Poitiers, Bordeaux
and Toulouse, brilliant receptions frequented by members of the parliaments, officers
and high dignitaries. At Poitiers, says Henri Carré, “the nobility was passionately fond of
reunions and festivals.” Even in the small cities there were social events for the nobility,
quite as lively and sumptuous as those in the large cities. During the warm season the
pleasures of life in the château furnished the attraction. The members of the parliaments,
who were often the most affluent among the provincial nobility, were noted for the luxury
of their receptions. It was customary to give sumptuous feasts. At the château of Thorigny,
in Dauphiné, where the Lavalette family lived, almost 4000 pounds of food were con-
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 59
sumed in three months.
Yet many of the well-situated nobles never left their estates and lived in the country
all the year, devoting themselves especially to the hunt. In the second half of the eighteenth century certain nobles, prompted by the prevailing style, engaged in agriculture.
This was true of the Marquis of Turbilly, on his domain at Volandry in Anjou. He cleared
waste-lands, drained swamps, constructed roads and deservedly became president of
the agricultural society at Paris. It was true also of the Duke of Rochefoucauld-Liancourt,
who applied his energy to developing the artificial meadow and new methods of agriculture. But it must be confessed that such noblemen were very rare. Almost all owners of
landed estates paid no attention to agriculture or to the management of their estates,
entrusting this to their stewards, as Arthur Young states several times. Their only occupation was their service, for a few years during their youth, as officers in the king’s army.
The Poor Nobility
But the poor nobility, it would seem, was more numerous than that in comfortable circumstances.
They lived wretchedly in manors that were falling into ruins. A nobleman of Brittany,
the Count of Sensy, had an income of 1200 livres, with which he had to rear seven
children. In 1774 a certain Colas de la Baronnais asked the king for assistance, for with
his income of 2000 livres he had to bring up seventeen children. P. de Vaissière, in his
book “Les gentilshommes campagnards de l’ancienne France” (The Country Gentlemen
of Old France), gives many similar examples. He says that the misery of the country
gentlemen was particularly great in sections where agriculture did not prove remunerative
and where cooperative farming was practised. The noble proprietors suffered reverses
as the result of bad crops and were hardly better off than the farmers themselves. One of
these country gentlemen, de Couladère by name, who lived on his land near Montauban,
petitioned the controller-general for assistance in 1710. The crop had failed and there was
not enough grain for food or for the next sowing. He adds:
“Our baker refuses to furnish us with bread any more because we have no crops left.
The millet that we have will not suffice to provide us for the year and to keep our farmers
alive... Yet I consider myself fortunate to have this sort of bread, although I am not
accustomed to eat it.”
As for the education of the boys and provision for the girls, the ruined nobles depended entirely upon the generosity of the king.
It is not astonishing that many nobles were reduced to the condition of peasants or
even looked for work on farms or in the excise service. Some even became carriers of
sedan-chairs or muleteers. In 1713 the maréchal d’Harcourt, speaking of Normandy,
wrote to the Secretary of War:
“I witness the poor nobility of this section in such a pitable state that noblemen
60 / Henri Sée
become peasants because they do not possess the means for an education, not even for
learning to read or write. This poverty obliges them to marry peasant girls, provided the
latter possess at least an acre of arable land.”
In 1789 seven noblemen dressed as peasants appeared before the provincial assembly of Poitou. They could not even pay their own expenses at the inn, and they confessed
that their daughters worked in the farm-yard and herded the sheep in the fields.
Accordingly it is easy to understand the hostility felt by the poor, petty nobility
toward the court nobility in 1789, for the latter garnered all the favors, the lucrative sinecures and the military positions. An echo of these complaints is found in the lines that
Brissot published in 1790 in the “Patriote français”:
“If any one class of citizens is the victim of the despotism and aristocracy of the
great and rich... it is the poor nobility, that numerous class of gentlemen peasants bound
by a hoary Gothic prejudice to their class.... The array of provocations of every kind to
which they are subjected in military matters is one of the most revolting imaginable.”
This situation of the petty nobility engaged the attention of many throughout the
century. Certain writers—especially the abbot Coyer in his “Noblesse commerçante”
and a gentleman of Brittany, Pinczon du Séides Monts,1 advocated industrial and commercial activity for the nobility. But the poor nobles had no means for this. In fact those
nobles that took an interest in mining companies, either as grantees or stockholders, were
mostly of the wealthy class, belonging to such families as Croy, Conti, Charost, Solages
and Chaulnes.
The Nobility and the Peasants
Although the nobles were obliged to lead a life so simple that they could hardly be
distinguished from peasants, they did not by any means consider the latter as their equals.
The relations between the lords and their peasants were far from having the idyllic character depicted by Mme. de la Rochejaquelein in her Memoirs. Even in Bocage in Vendée
it is doubtful whether there was always perfect accord between the two classes. The
poor nobles possessing manorial rights were naturally inspired to exercise them most
rigorously in order to be able to live. Indeed, the court nobility, absent from their domains and in great need of money because of their luxurious mode of living, were no less
exacting. During the course of the eighteenth century the increased cost of living and the
growing need for money certainly had the effect of aggravating the manorial exploitation,
as we have seen. It was the period of the restoration of the court-rolls, the age in which
the subin-feudation of barren lands multiplied, thus injuring the interests and needs of the
mass of peasants. Not that the nobles were naturally tyrannical, but they were neither
saints nor philanthropists and regarded the peasants as of a different class from themselves. In fact the serious agrarian troubles that broke out at the time of the Revolution,
and the manner in which the peasants rose against the manorial system, prove clearly that
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 61
the nobility did not by any means exercise that beneficent and paternal authority about
which we are usually told.
The Nobility and the New Ideas
We may ask how far it is true that at the approach of the Revolution a goodly part of the
nobility had been won over to the new ideas of liberty and equality, known as the “philosophical ideas.” No doubt some of the members of the high nobility in Paris who associated with the writers and thinkers of the period and entertained them in their salons,
were converted to the theories of humanity and justice. The following significant passage
of the Count of Ségur is often quoted:
“We were scornful critics of the old customs, of the feudal pride of our fathers and
of their severe etiquette, and everything that was old seemed annoying and ridiculous to
us... We felt disposed to follow with enthusiasm the philosophical doctrines professed
by witty and bold writers. Voltaire attracted our intellect and Rousseau touched our
hearts. We took secret pleasure in seeing them attack the old framework, which appeared
antiquated and ridiculous to us.... We enjoyed at the same time the advantages of the
patriciate and the amenities of a plebeian philosophy.”
But the philosophical ideas won adherents among the nobles only in a small minority
of cases, although they were prominent in the masonic lodges. As a whole the nobles
were more concerned about preserving the privileges of every kind that they enjoyed.
The members of the parliaments repeatedly expressed, in their remonstrances, the ideas
and sentiments of the class to which they belonged. If they combated what they styled
the despotism and tyranny of the royal agents, and opposed the new taxes, it was above
all because they felt their privileges endangered. Toward the end of the ancien régime
they bore a grudge against the progressive ministers, such as Necker and Turgot, who
tried to realize administrative and social reforms tending to diminish the inequalities. The
nobility detested the provincial governors, who were the most active and powerful agents
of a government whose tendencies the nobility distrusted. Their reason for invoking
liberty was because they feared the progress of an equality that was dangerous to their
privileges.
This explains why the nobility demanded the States General, in which they hoped to
achieve the triumph of their cause, and a constitution, which, they thought, would guarantee their privileges. According to Mounier, all the deputies of the nobility were “in
agreement on the point that they had no constitution and that the States General should
procure one for them.” It should also be remembered that as a result of the edicts of
May, 1788, against the Parliaments, the nobility gave the signal for the revolutionary
agitation which was destined soon to turn against them.
62 / Henri Sée
The Nobility and Public Opinion
Public opinion, moreover, did not at all believe in this liberalism of the nobility. As Henri
Carré shows in his valuable book “La noblesse de France au XVIIIe siècle” (The Nobility
of France in the Eighteenth Century), opinion became more and more pronounced against
the nobles. But, in spite of what the learned historian says, the discredit into which they
had fallen was not brought about primarily by the moral decadence of a part of the class,
which was too much addicted to gambling and to women, nor by the scandals provoked
by the swindling or the violence of this or that nobleman. Rather were the nobles considered more and more to be parasites, who were ruining the royal treasury, and privileged
characters, who were harming the interests of the whole nation.
Even long before the Revolution the Marquis of Argenson in his “Pensées pour la
réformation de l’État (Thoughts on the Reform of the State) declared that “the race of
great lords must be destroyed completely”:
“By great lords I understand those who have dignities, property, titles, offices and
functions, and who, without deserts and without necessarily being men at all, are none
the less great and for this reason often worthless.... But they themselves and many others
will tell you that they are the bulwark of the state and that the good names of Montmorency,
La Trémoille, etc. must be preserved. I notice that a breed of good hunting dogs is
preserved, but once it deteriorates it is done away with.”
In fact all the social classes that are grouped under the name of third estate turned
unanimously against the nobility. The peasants complained especially of the manorial
system and its most glaring abuses. The bourgeoisie complained above all about the
exemptions from taxes which the nobility enjoyed, and against their privileges in juridical
matters. The claim was raised that the bourgeoisie ought to be admitted to a footing of
equality and should be eligible to all positions in the service of the state. By its natural
capacities and education the bourgeoisie claimed that it was best fitted for administering
public affairs, for it knew more about legislation than the lords. Then too its pride had
been humiliated very often. It demanded also the abolition of the right of armorial bearings, all titles and decorations, and the discontinuance of the schools for the “education”
of the children of poor nobles. Finally it called for equality of civil and penal laws for
nobles and commoners. So strong were the feelings against the nobility animating the
deputies of the third estate in the States General that the ambassador of the United States,
Gouverneur Morris, wrote in 1789: “the current against the nobility is so strong that I fear
its destruction.”
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 63
Lack of a Consciousness of Mutual Interests among the Nobility
But it was not the hostility of the entire third estate that constituted the greatest danger for
the nobles. The most serious disadvantage was the lack of a feeling of solidarity among
them. The petty provincial nobility detested the court nobility more than it did the third
estate itself. And the privileged order was subdivided into a great number of distinct
categories, separated by opposed interests. The nobles did not constitute a social class
with a consciousness of collective interests. They formed an incoherent mass of privileged persons, who were concerned primarily about their family interests, that is, their
personal interests. Even when they had public authority at their disposal they did not
always succeed in using it effectively. Brittany presents a case in point. In the States of
this province the nobility enjoyed a preponderant rôle. They were concerned about defending their interests against the royal government. If they had joined forces with the
parliament, composed exclusively of nobles, they would have become formidable. But
they did so only in rare instances. The Parliament, for its part, thought only about its own
private interests. It was animated above all by an esprit de corps and often got into
conflict with the States. In this way the agents of the royal power profited by the disunion
and triumphed over two separate adversaries, who if united could frequently have won a
victory. An illuminating treatment of this subject is given by Rebillon in “Les États de
Bretagne au XVIIIe siècle” (The States of Brittany in the Eighteenth Century).
The superiority of the adversaries of the nobility, namely the members of the various
classes composing the third estate, lay in their feeling that they had a common cause
against the privileged class. In this sense the third estate truly represented the French
people. That explains why the nobility, in spite of its ancient privileges, its wealth and the
support of the royal court, succumbed forever in the struggle that began in 1789.
Works of Reference
Besides the works of Loutchisky, Lefèbvre, E. Lavisse, Soulgé, etc., cited in previous
chapters, the following books should be consulted:
Henri Carré, La noblesse de France et l’opinion publique au XVIIIe siècle, Champion,
1920.
Boiteau, État de la France en 1789, 2nd édition, Paris, 1889.
G. Roupnel, La ville et la campagne au XVIIe siècle: étude sur les populations du pays
dijonnais, 1922.
P. De Vaissière, Gentilshommes campagnards de le l’ancienne France, Paris, 1903,
and Lettres aristocrates, Paris, 1907.
Ferdinand-Dreyfus, Un gentilhomme d’autrefois, La Rochefoucauld-Liancourt.
De Lomenie, Les Mirabeau, Paris, 1879, 2 vols.
H. Sée, Les classes rurales en Bretagne du XVIe siècle à la Révolution, 1906.
———, Esquisse d’une histoire de régime agraire en Europe aux XVIIIe et XIXe siècles,
64 / Henri Sée
1921.
Mireur, Le Tiers état à Draguignan (Bulletin de la Société des études scientifiques et
archéologiques de Draguignan, vol. 27, 1908–1909).
Ch. de Ribbe, La Société provençale à la fin du moyen âge, Paris, 1902.
Hervé du Halgouët, Droits honorifiques et prééminences dans les Églises de Bretagne
(Mémoires de la Société d’histoire de Bretagne, 1923).
H. Bourde de la Rogerie, Etude sur la réformation de la noblesse en Bretagne (1688–
1721)
———, same publication, 1922.
Chérest, La chute de l’ancien régime, 1884–1887, 3 vols. in-8°.
Augustin Cochin, Les Sociétés de pensée et la Révolution en Bretagne, Paris, 1925, 2
vols, in 8°.
Chapter 5: Parliamentary Nobility and Administrative Nobility
A characteristic feature of society in the eighteenth century was the existence of a parliamentary nobility and an administrative nobility, a phenomenon that is in a sense analogous to the Russian Tchin. In old France, as in Russia, the position brought nobility with
it, but in France the judges and officials joined the ranks of the nobility only very slowly.
Origins of the Parliamentary Nobility
In the seventeenth century the judges of the sovereign courts and parliaments still held a
position half-way between the bourgeoisie and the nobility. In the eighteenth century
there was a complete fusion between the nobility of the sword (noblesse d’épée) and that
of the gown (noblesse de robe); especially in the parliaments of Rennes, Rouen and
Grenoble, which decided to admit as members only full-fledged nobles.
Roupnel, in the work that we have already quoted, shows by significant examples
how the parliamentary families secured great lordly estates, which assured them a high
social position. The family of Bouhier in Burgundy acquired numerous estates in the
region around the Burgundian capital between 1631 and 1730, bought up public property, and restored to force the old manorial rights of the domain of Lantenay, so that
during the eighteenth century their lands constituted “one of the finest groups of manorial
possessions in the province.” The family of Minot de Mairetet, descendants of a merchant of the sixteenth century, after a slow ascension to the nobility, gradually acquired a
large domain and in the eighteenth century became a powerful parliamentary family in
Dijon.
66 / Henri Sée
Great Parliamentary Families
It is easy to understand why the great parliamentary families, such as those of d’Ormesson,
Joly de Fleury, Lepelletier, Molé, d’Aguesseau, Séguier, Pasquier and Malesherbes, should
sometimes eclipse the nobility of the sword. The presiding judge d’Aligre had an income
of 700,000 livres. When the public offices depreciated more and more in the course of
the eighteenth century, the wealthy bourgeois no longer sought them, and the parliamentary nobility became a closed caste.
They allied themselves with the nobility of the sword, although they could be frequently distinguished by manners and customs. They were stiffer if not more austere,
and their luxury was often more costly but also more temperate. They still showed traces
of their bourgeois origin.
Personal Merit of the Parliamentarians
It is difficult to pass judgment on the personal worth of these members of the parliaments. Often the members of the courts exercised their functions at an age when they
possessed neither the necessary education nor experience. In the universities they had
often acquired, for money, diplomas that did not by any means prove that they had
studied law. The investigation made by the corporation had no real value. Many of the
parliamentarians were quite ignorant or incompetent. But in the courts of justice there
were also a certain number of deserving men and even some of great distinction, such as
La Chalotais. There were also scholars, like Bouhier, distinguished writers, such as the
presiding judge Renault and the presiding judge de Brosses, and a chemist of renown,
Guyton de Morveau.
Conservative Spirit of the Parliamentarians
However that may be, the members of the parliaments claimed to adhere to the old
customs. They frowned upon the diminution of the cost of justice, the abolition of the
judges’ fees and the unification of practises. They did not wish to change the ancient
criminal procedure, which was so unjust and involved so many errors of justice, and they
adhered to the barbaric system of torture. Not until the eve of the Revolution (1780–
1788) were the forms of torture known as question préalable and question préliminaire
abolished.
The parliamentarians protested vigorously against the lettres de cachet, which they
regarded as an encroachment upon their judicial prerogatives. But they disapproved of
the freedom of the press and condemned and burned a multitude of books because they
were irreverent toward the religious truths or the existing institutions. They opposed the
declaration granting civil status to the Protestants.
Finally the parliamentarians appointed themselves the defenders of all the social privi-
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 67
leges and turned against all the reforms that tended to diminish them. Turgot had no
greater enemies than them when he tried to abolish compulsory labor in kind or the
wardenships of trade-corporations. It is known that they condemned Boncerf’s book
denouncing the manorial rights, and it is possible that their sruggle against the royal
power had its source in their conservative spirit. “Royal despotism” concerned them
particularly when liberal ministers tried to ameliorate existing conditions.
Hence the hostility of the “philosophers” and all liberal spirits toward the parliaments
can be readily understood, and the invectives of Diderot and Voltaire are easy to explain.
The former says:
“Intolerant, bigoted and stupid, preserving the customs of the Goths and Vandals,...
they are eager to interfere in everything, religion, government, police protection, finance,
art and sciences, and always confuse everything in accordance with their ignorance,
interest and prejudices.”
Voltaire distinguished himself even more by his hatred against the parliaments. He
deplored their summoning (rappel) in 1774: “It is worthy of our nation of apes to regard
our assassins as our protectors. We are flies who take the part of spiders.”
However, among the members of the parliaments there were also liberal and generous spirits, as du Paty, liberals such as Robert de Saint-Vincent, and even radicals,
namely the “American faction,” including Adrien Duport and Hérault de Séchelles. They
are the men who contributed to the prestige of the parliament. Thanks to them, it has been
possible to consider that body as a defender of liberty.
The Social Role of the Parliaments
The parliaments represented the past rather than the future, yet it cannot be denied that
they played a great social rôle during the eighteenth century. In the cities serving as court
residences their members held the first rank by virtue of their wealth and influence. The
whole body of lawyers, advocates and attorneys centered in them. Cities like Rennes,
Dijon and Aix have preserved their sumptuous homes. In the neighboring rural regions
the most beautiful châteaux belonged to them. Among them were powerful lords and
landed proprietors, as in Brittany the families of Caradeuc, Châteaugiron and Talhouet,
and in Dauphiné those of Ornacieux and Bérulle. The parliamentary cities present one of
the interesting aspects of the France of those days.
The Administrative Nobility. The Provincial “Intendants.” The Councillors of
State
The high dignitaries, the members of the council of state and the provincial governors, or
“intendants,” also formed a genuine caste. So far as the provincial “intendants” are concerned, we need not here insist upon the importance and extent of their duties, which
even increased during the eighteenth century and which they frequently carried out with
68 / Henri Sée
zeal and intelligence. But we must emphasize their important social rôle. Often they formed
veritable dynasties, as for instance the families of Amelot, La Galaisiere, La Bourdonnaye
de Blossac and Feydeau, and they kept in close touch with the parliamentary circles, to
which they often belonged. Their salaries were high, varying from 20,000 to 40,000 livres.
Some, like Montyon and Blossac, had a large personal fortune. This social station helped
to increase their independence as administrators. They did not blindly follow the orders
of ministers; often they gave proof of initiative, as Turgot did in Limousin. To an increasing extent, toward the end of the ancien regime, they dealt with economic questions, and
often happily. If they were unpopular, it was due to the fact that they showed themselves
hostile to experiments in self-government, especially to the institution of the provincial
assemblies. They came to be looked upon as the principal agents of “despotism.”
The “intendants” kept in close touch with the council of state, in which they had
begun their career as maître des requêtes and in which they were “erstwhile commissioners” (commissaires départis). The council of state formed the core of the administrative
nobility, as it were. From it came most of the high officials, the assistants of the ministers
of state, and often the ministers themselves.
Works of Reference
Beside the works cited in chapter IV consult the following:
Flammermont, Remontrances du Parlement de Paris au XVIIIe siècle, 3 vols., 1888–
1898.
Floquet, Histoire du Parlement de Normandie, Rouen, 1840–1849, 7 vols.
Saulnier, Le Parlement de Bretagne, 1908, 2 vols.
A. Le Moy, Le Parlement de Bretagne et le pouvoir royal au XVIIIe siècle, 1909 (thesis).
Henri Carré, La fin des Parlements, 1915.
De la Cuisine, Le Parlement de Bourgogne, Dijon, 1864, 3 vols.
Ardascheff, Les intendants en France sous le règne de Louis XVI, French tranlation,
1909.
F. Dumas, La généralité de Tours au XVIII siècle, 1894 (thesis).
Michel Lhéritier, Tourny, 1920 (thesis).
Georges Michon, Adrien Duport, Paris, 1924 (thesis).
Henri Lion, Le président Hénault.
Chapter 6: Petty Industry. The Trades and Guilds
Predominance of Petty Industry
In the eighteenth century, in spite of the economic changes foreshadowing the development of great industry (which will be discussed later), petty industry, that is, enterprises
on a small scale, remained predominant. This is true not only of all the trades having as
their object the feeding, clothing and housing of the population, but also the trades connected with the textile industry, all of which were later included among the great industries. As will be seen, “concentrated” enterprises remained the exception, even at the end
of the ancien régime. In Poitou, a factory inspector wrote in 1747: “there are five hundred factories, but most of the manufacturers work for themselves, with the result that
there are not more than fifty employers who have all their work done by hired help.”
Thirty years later these conditions had not changed in that province.
Everywhere in France the tanneries, glass-works and paper-mills, with the exception
of a few large establishments, as well as the dyeing establishments and laundries, were
small concerns that employed only a few workmen. In most of the cities the small artisans who worked alone or employed but a single assistant were in the majority. In Bordeaux the number of assistants was only four times as great as that of the employers.
Although a few textile factories at Paris employed, in 1791, several hundred workmen,
the average was only sixteen employees to one employer. In the cities of second or third
class, such as Rennes, large industrial undertakings were even less common.
70 / Henri Sée
The Guilds. Free Trades and Trade-Corporations
First of all we must consider the trades. Distinction should be made between the free
trades and trade-corporations.
In spite of the efforts of the royal power and the edict of 1673, which renewed the
edicts of 1581 and 1597, the free trades had not all been transformed into trade-corporations. They were still very numerous, more numerous on the whole than the others. Even
when they aspired to this transformation, they met the opposition of the existing tradecorporations or of the municipal authorities, who invoked public interest.
The transformation of the free trades into trade-corporations had the following effects. It determined the rules of apprenticeship; it made a trial-piece necessary; it determined the relations among the employers; and it created jurors. The free trades too had
their regulations, but they were less rigid than the statutes, and their application was
controlled, not by jurors of the trade, but by authority of the municipality or the lord.
Apprenticeship
In the free trades the duration of the period of apprenticeship was not fixed, and the number of
apprentices was not limited. In the sworn trades, on the other hand, the contract of apprenticeship was obligatory and its duration was determined by statutes, varying in general from four
to eight years. The respective rights and duties of master and apprentice were fixed. The
apprentice had to pay board for his maintenance, and he bound himself not to desert his
master. The master, on his part, had to teach the apprentice his trade “without concealing
anything from him,” give him suitable lodging and board, and treat him decently. The number
of apprentices was limited by statute, usually to one or two. It was hoped in that way to
prevent any master from taking advantage of his colleagues, and the journeymen observed the
same rule, for they feared the competition of the apprentices.
But it is clear that during the eighteenth century, as well as earlier, the apprentices were not
fully assured the enjoyment of those guarantees which the corporate statutes and the contracts
of apprenticeship professed to assure them. Often they were compelled to do excessive labor,
they were used as servants, and they had to endure the brutality of their masters and of the
journeymen, although the public authorities tried hard to protect them.
The Journeymen
Two conditions were necessary for becoming a journeyman: the candidate must have
been an apprentice, and he had to pay a fee of admission. The masters wanted to reserve
for themselves the right of taking on their workmen. They feared that the journeymen
might arrogate this privilege to themselves, as was the case in the trades of the “tour de
France,” that is the itinerant trades.
The journeyman was hired to his master by a contract, which was often verbal but
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 71
which he was compelled to respect in any case. Discipline was often harsh; the workman
had to finish the task he began and could not leave his master without giving two weeks’
notice.
In short, the masters enjoyed a sort of monopoly of labor. But it was forbidden a
master to entice journeymen away from a colleague. The workmen in turn were not permitted to work on their own account. Those who did so were called chambrelans and
were ferreted out, as it were, by the guilds.
In the eighteenth century, more so than in previous ages, it was impossible for the
majority of journeymen to rise above their station. It was due mainly to the legal organization of the trades that they were doomed to remain journeymen all their lives.
Acquisition of the Status of Master
It became increasingly difficult to rise to the status of master. The trial-piece, absolutely
obligatory, became more and more complicated and took a long time to complete, hence
it became very onerous, in spite of the rules fixed by the royal ordinances. In addition it
was necessary to give presents to the masters whose duty it was to judge the work.
Furthermore the aspirant had to pay fees to the sworn masters and give the guild a
royalty, which was often very high and increased during the eighteenth century. Among
the apothecaries at Paris it rose to 1000 livres, and among the keepers of cafés and the
distillers it amounted to 800 livres. Then the municipal, aristocratic and royal authorities
also demanded exorbitant dues. Finally there were demands and abuses on the part of
the jurors, who took sums of money unjustly from the candidates.
On the other hand, the sons and sons-in-law of masters were sometimes almost
completely excused from the trial-piece or had to produce only a semi-trial-piece. The
fees, too, which were exacted of them were reduced to a minimum. Thus mastership
tended to become almost entirely a family monopoly.
The Administration of the Guilds. The Jurors
The guilds met at stated periods, formed electoral assemblies every year and held business meetings about once a month. Yet these assemblies were not very independent, for
the public authorities determined their agenda.
But the administration of the guilds was in the hands of the jurors, four or two in
number, who were elected every two years by the masters. Their duties were very complex. They supervised law and order in their trade, controlled production, examining the
quality of the products, verifying their weight, inspecting the measures and instruments,
and marking the products that seemed to them honestly made. They were also responsible for the material interests and the finances of the guild. They proved very active but
often were responsible for abuses.
72 / Henri Sée
The Brotherhood
Beside the guild there was the brotherhood, which was often confused with it, but had an
exclusively religious and charitable character. The brotherhood had its chapel and altar,
where masses were read on the day of the patron saint and during the great festivals of
the year. It also celebrated the obsequies of its members. The brotherhood, too, gave aid
to brothers in need, to widows and orphans, and sometimes even to journeymen. But it
was interested much less in the latter. The journeymen often formed separate brotherhoods, associations or journeyman-brotherhoods, which made it possible for them to
help one another and take a stand against the masters. We will discuss this in detail later.
The Real Rôle of the Guilds
They aimed to maintain the collective monopoly of the masters of the same trade. They
tried also to diminish the effects of competition, forbidding masters to have more than
one shop, opposing the monopolies and endeavoring to assure to all the necessary raw
material. Each of the trades formed a closed body, in opposition to the rest of the guilds.
Each tried to maintain its privileges and monopoly and to defend itself against the encroachments of a neighboring guild, but at the same time to encroach upon others. Hence
there were interminable lawsuits everywhere—between shoemakers and cobblers, and
between tailors and old clothes dealers. The haberdashers were always in conflict with all
sorts of other guilds, precisely because they claimed the right to sell all kinds of goods.
The clothes merchants tried constantly to defend themselves against the competition of
the haberdashers, wholesale clothiers, tailors and jewelers, who did not hesitate to sell
clothing to their customers. This is seen clearly at Nantes during the entire course of the
eighteenth century.
The guilds combated also the strangers, that is, the itinerant dealers. At Rennes, for
example, the guilds of merchants tried to compel them to sell only at wholesale.
Moreover, beside those merchants who were organized in trade-corporations, we
find numerous petty merchants who evaded the supervision of the guilds, and also great
wholesale merchants who found it easier to maintain their independence, especially in the
great commercial centers. These merchants were often in conflict with the guilds of
artisans, for example at Nantes with the nail-makers, who tried to forbid the importation
of foreign nails. The merchants declared that the latter, in agreement with the iron manufacturers, were engaging in questionable practises.
Legal Hierarchy of the Trades
Often we find among the trades a legal hierarchy which usually developed from an
economic hierarchy, for certain trades naturally led to opulence and even to great wealth.
Thus the municipal ordinance of Dijon, of January, 1727, divided the trades into four
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 73
classes.
First class: the printers, book dealers, surgeons, apothecaries, haberdashers, clothiers, goldsmiths, hardware dealers, card makers and button makers.
Second class: the trades concerned with food supplies (bakers, butchers, pastry
cooks, pork butchers, cooks, and wine merchants), the trades concerned with saddlery
and hides, the shoemakers, and the upholsterers.
Third class: the trades concerned with metals and furniture.
Fourth class: the building trades, the cobblers, and the artisans giving out work
(clothiers, agriculturists, etc.).
At Paris there rose above the other guilds the so-called “Six Bodies” (clothiers,
grocers, haberdashers, furriers, hat makers and goldsmiths), which exercised an increasing preponderance over the other trades.
Economic Consequences of the System of Trade-Corporations
No doubt supervision and regulation tended to prevent poor work and to produce products of good quality. Yet on the other hand, numerous frauds and many cases of negligence occurred, which were harmful to the public and which competition perhaps might
have prevented. The organization of the trades favored also the spirit of routine and
hostility against every innovation.
While the esprit de corps sometimes engendered moral dignity and accentuated the
spirit of responsibility, yet the corporative organization caused futile disputes about precedence and distrust among the guilds. The tanner distrusted the currier, the serge maker
the card maker, and the apothecary the grocer. The organization was democratic in a
sense, in that it tended to establish equality between the masters, an equality in mediocrity; but it had also an aristocratic character, since it tended to transform the guilds into
closed bodies, inaccessible to the journeymen. The guild was not in any sense a family
association in which masters and journeymen lived side by side in perfect harmony. It
defended only the interests of the masters, and it is a serious mistake to compare the
guilds of the ancien régime with the modern trades unions. Finally the organization of
labor represented by the trade-corporation grew more and more out of harmony with the
economic needs of the period.
Accentuation of Guild Organization
All the characteristics which we have described were accentuated more and more in the
course of the eighteenth century. The royal power contributed to this when by its decree
of August 23, 1767, renewing the edict of 1673, it tried once more to submit all the trades
to the supervision of the wardens of the trade-corporations. It favored also the reform
and revision of the statutes demanded by the guilds, in order to make the rules and the
monopoly stricter, and for the purpose of preventing competition. The royal power was
74 / Henri Sée
interested in this, for it secured extra taxes in consequence of each of these reforms.
Then too the royal authority, as a result, exercised a closer supervision over the guilds,
particularly in matters of finance.
The spirit of routine in the guilds was increased. They were hostile to every innovation. In 1736 the button makers tried to oppose the manufacture of trade-buttons. In
1756 the king had authorized Bedel to apply to cotton materials a sort of blue dye, which
he had invented. He established his industry, but in 1763 the great dyers sued him. A Paris
hatter, Leprevost, manufactured hats made partly of silk; as a result his colleagues persecuted him continually. In 1760 the sworn masters seized a great number of his hats, and
it took him four years to obtain authorization to continue his business. Thus, at the very
time when the requirements of production were increasing, the trades guilds formed an
obstacle in the path of industrial progress.
Financial Ruin of the Guilds
The guilds were exposed to financial difficulties that became ever more serious. The
basic reason for this is clear: the increasing needs of the royal treasury, aggravated by the
wars of Louis XV.
This explains why, under the reign of Louis XIV, offices were created for the sake of
collecting lucrative licence fees. In 1745 inspectors and controllers of the sworn masters
were appointed, for the sake of collecting licence fees for them. But as a matter of fact,
these fees were difficult to collect. The guilds of Rennes, for instance, could not raise the
194,000 livres demanded of them, for they had been ruined previously by the fees collected at the beginning of the century. In Roussillon the “intendant” declared that it was
impossible to raise the requisite sums, “even if we should deprive the members of all
their effects and all the furniture that they might have in their houses.”
The royal power created also letters of mastership, but to a much smaller extent than
in the seventeenth century. In 1757 the king had promised to grant no more such letters,
but in 1767, when he was in need of funds, he created twelve masterships for each trade
in Paris; eight in the cities having a superior court; four in those endowed with a presidial;
and two in each of the others. The guilds were now so heavily in debt that frequently they
did not procure licences for new masterships. Finally we must mention the more or less
voluntary gifts, such as the 514 thousand livres presented by the Six Bodies of Paris in
1759, after the defeat at Rossbach.
The guilds were always embarrassed by their old debts, by the lawsuits that they
were involved in, and by their administrative expenses. Loans increased the annual expenditures, and it became necessary to contract loan after loan in order to pay the interest
on the old debts. There came a time when the guilds saw no other escape but recourse to
so-called égails, contributions assessed against the members, and initiation fees. The
ruin of the guilds reflected also upon their members, whose economic condition became
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 75
increasingly bad. Examples of this decline can be well seen in Roussillon and Rennes.
Hence, after 1750 the government took up the question of the liquidation of the debts of
the guilds, and it was this question which called forth the first projects of reform.
The Projects of Reform
Numerous memorials, especially after 1750, demanded the restriction of the corporative
monopolies or even a system of complete freedom. In 1761 the Secretary of State Bertin
demanded the reduction of the number of guilds by combining some of them.
Taking advantage of the accession of Turgot to power, the economists engaged in an
active campaign. In 1775 they published a memorial of Bigot de Sainte-Croix entitled
“Essai sur la liberté du commerce et de l’industrie” (Essay on the Freedom of Commerce and Industry), which revealed clearly all the defects of the guild system and demanded the complete freedom of commerce and industry. The Six Bodies in reply had
Delacroix draw up a long memorial, which endeavored to show that the conservation of
the ancient privileges constituted a guarantee for the public.
The Reform of Turgot
The edict of 1776 was a logical consequence of the trend of ideas at the time. In his
preamble Turgot tried to show the disastrous effects of the guild system upon industry,
the workmen and the consumers. With the royal rights he contrasted the natural rights
and claimed that one could not sell the right to work, for this was “the birthright of every
man,” and this birthright “the first, the most sacred and the most indefeasable of all.”
Consequently “it will be free to every person, of whatever condition and quality he may
be,” to exercise any kind of trade and even “to combine several.” Lawsuits, as well as
cases of poor work, should be judged by the constituted officers of surveillance. The
masters and workmen are forbidden “to form any association or assembly under any
pretext whatsoever.” Brotherhoods were likewise prohibited.
But the edict met with very lively opposition and was not applied. It fell with Turgot.
Yet the old system was not reestablished, as the new edict of August, 1776, which was a
sort of compromise, shows. According to this, certain professions were to be free and
others would be organized into guilds, but similar guilds would be united into a single
one. The edict of August concerned only Paris, but the effort was made to extend its
provisions also to the provinces—a slow and difficult task. In French Flanders, Artois
and Brittany the old organization was maintained.
Summing up, we may say that in spite of certain improvements in the system, the
question of the guilds was still a burning one when the Revolution broke out. In 1789
many of the memorials urged their abolition. These memorials reflected the feelings of the
high bourgeoisie, the free professions and the merchants. On the other hand, the masters
of the trades demanded their retention. Thus the struggle of the classes, the nature of
76 / Henri Sée
which will be seen later, developed. The Constituent Assembly finally took up once more
the radical measure of Turgot.
Works of Reference
Beside the work of Roupnel, cited in chapter IV, consult:
Geneviève Aclocque, Les corporations, l’industrie et le commerce à Chartres du XIe
siècle à la Révolution, Paris, 1917.
P. Boissonnade, Étude sur l’organisation du travail en Poitou, 1899, 2 vols.
Alfred Bourgeois, Les métiers de Blois (Mémoires de la Société des lettres et sciences de
Loir-et-Cher, 1891–1897), 2 vols.
Joseph Fournier, Cahiers de doléances de la sénéchaussée de Marseille, 1908 (Collection des Documents économiques de la Révolution).
Henri Hauser, Travailleurs et marchands de l’ancienne France, Paris, 1920.—Notes
sur l’organisation du travail en Bourgogne du XVI e au XVII e siècle (Revue
bourguignonne de l’Enseignement supérieur, 1904).
Pied, Les anciens corps de métiers de Nantes, Nantes, 1903. 3 vols.
A. Rebillon, Les anciennes corporations ouvrières et marchandes de Rennes, Rennes,
1902 (reprinted from Annales de Bretagne).
Recueil des règlements généraux et particuliers concernant les manufactures du
royaume, 1730–1750, 7 vols.
Vidal and Duru, Histoire de la corporation des marchands merciers, Paris, 1912.
Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire du commerce et de l’industrie de la France, publiés
par Julien Hayem, 10 vols., Paris, 1911–1926.
Chapter 7: Commercial Development in the Eighteenth
Century
The progress of commerce preceded and determined the progress of industry. But during the eighteenth century a remarkable commercial development, both internal and external, made itself felt.
The Ways of Communication
The various sections of France tended to emerge from their isolation, and the need for
more active relations and less primitive communication was felt.
The network of roads developed appreciably, particularly in the second half of the
eighteenth century. Two facts contributed to this progress, first the establishment of the
school for bridge and road engineers in 1747, and the organization of the engineers
between 1750 and 1754. The budget for bridges and roads also increased greatly, rising
at the end of the ancien régime to 7 million livres. Moreover this served only for bridges,
tunnels and salaries, since the work of construction and maintenance of the roads was
done by means of the forced-labor statute (corvée royale). In 1788 there were 12,000
leagues of actually constructed roads and 12,000 leagues planned or in course of construction. The great roads, that is the royal roads, 12 to 20 meters wide, radiated generally from Paris toward the extremities of the kingdom. This was a natural consequence of
centralization. The network resembled, in its general plan, our present-day network of
railways, the important lines being Paris-Strasbourg, Paris-Lyons-Marseilles, Paris-Brest,
Paris-Toulouse, and Paris-Lille. From east to west they were much less numerous. It is
clear that in laying out this network, much more attention was paid to strategic, rather
than com-merical interests. In Brittany, at the beginning of the Seven Years’ War, the
78 / Henri Sée
Duke of Aiguillon, for example, prompted by military motives, actively pushed the construction of the great roads— a thing which displeased the estates of the province.
Nor should we forget that these roads were in rather poor condition. The stone
surface, which forced labor was expected to provide, was in bad shape, and often the
roads were obstructed by quagmires, while bridges were scarce. And since everywhere
the cross-roads were impracticable, all the parish memorials complained about them.
Internal navigation was still more important for commerce than the roads. Particularly after 1770 the state devoted itself to navigation, regarded it as a public utility and
revived the projects abandoned after Colbert. Less attention was paid to the navigability
of rivers, which was in a backward state and was impeded by the mills and the tollhouses, than to the building of canals. In the north especially this work made progress; a
whole network of canals was built. But the Central Canal, the Burgundy Canal, and the
Rhone-Rhine Canal were only begun. A memorial of the “contractors engaged in the
conveyance of salt for the salt-store,” dated 1785, declared, not without exaggeration,
that because of all the obstacles in the way of navigation, the “conveyance” of merchandise by water was more expensive than shipment by land.
The Means of Transportation
In spite of genuine progress, they were still imperfect. There were the stage-coaches,
leased to the revenue farmers until 1775, entrusted with the transportation of passengers.
The public carriages were still far from comfortable, especially the fourgons and the
carrosses. The diligences were better equipped. As for the post-chaises, they traveled
faster but were quite expensive. On the streams the barges left only three times a month,
and their trips were endless. Thus it took from 18 to 20 days to travel in them from Paris
to Rouen. On the roads, the diligences covered only two leagues per hour, and the
carosses from eight to ten leagues per day. To be sure, Turgot established diligences
everywhere. But the trips were always infrequent, only one or two per week in Brittany.
Then there were very few cross-country lines, and the price was very high—13 sous, and
7 sous per league in the diligences.
If we consider now the duration of the trips, we find that during the first sixty years
of the eighteenth century they were very long. But toward the end of the ancien regime
there was considerable improvement in this respect. It was due in part to the efforts of
Turgot, who tried to better the service of the diligences and the stage-coaches by releasing them from the postal lease and giving them a grantee manager. But this reform was
only transitory, as were the new conveyances called turgotines. Yet beginning with 1776
travel in the diligences became more rapid. From Paris to Lyons it now took hardly more
than 5 days, while in the seventeenth century it took 10; to Bordeaux 6; to Lille 3 (in the
seventeenth 4); to Marseilles 11. The post-chaises were more rapid, but one had to be
rich in order to be able to afford them.
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 79
The mail service was of course very defective, particularly from one provincial town
to another. There were in fact very few cross-country lines. From Lyons to Bordeaux
letters had to travel via Paris and took eight days. From Rennes to Granville they took 7.
The transportation of merchandise, except for packages of less than 50 pounds, was
entrusted to draymen, who made a business of such work. It was very slow and expensive, the cost of transportation often being as high as the cost of the article itself. By
water the prices were at least cut in half, but the boatmen were likely to practise fraud, or
even to commit theft, and navigation was hindered by the tolls, mills, etc. But traffic
became more active during the course of the century, as is seen by the fact that from
1,222,000 livres in 1676, the postal lease rose to 8,800,000 livres in 1777. The difficulties
of transportation on the roads and rivers explain the fact that recourse was had, even
more than in our day, to coastwise trade in all seacoast provinces. A ship-owner of SaintMalo, Magon de la Balue by name, declares in one of his letters that from his city the
shipment of merchandise by sea to Nantes was less expensive than land shipments to
Rennes. Seaports were much more numerous than they are today; frequently barks of
from 50 to 100 tons were used to ship goods from Brittany to Bordeaux or Bayonne, and
from Havre to Granville.
In 1783 for the first time royal liners were introduced into service between the mother
country and the Antilles. They were reserved for passengers, letters and objects of value,
and left once a month for the “American islands,” neither from Havre or Bordeaux. They
left eight times a year from Havre for the United States, and four times for Bourbon and
the Isle de France. This signified a great innovation.
Hence we may conclude that in the eighteenth century considerable progress was
made with regard to ways of communication and transportation. But if we consider the
revolution in this field that took place in the following century, we realize that in thirty
years—from 1840 to 1870— the progress was infinitely greater than during the entire
three centuries that had preceded.
Decline of the Fairs. Progress of Credit
A very significant indication of the commercial development is furnished by the decline
of the great fairs, not only those at Paris (Saint Germain and Lendit), but also those at
Lyons. Only those at Beaucaire continued to do big business, but they lost much of their
international character. Yet the provincial fairs continued to play an important part. Those
of Caën and Guibray (in Normandy) attracted merchants from almost every part of France.
With regard to private credit there do not seem to have been any important changes.
The failure of the Law system prompted the abandonment of all plans looking toward the
establishment of a great bank, similar to those at London and Amsterdam. The banks at
Lyons no longer had the importance that they once had. In spite of its active commerce,
Marseilles possessed no important bank and had to resort to commercial brokers. But in
80 / Henri Sée
Paris the banks seem to have increased in number and importance; besides the private
financiers engaged in banking operations everywhere. Toward the end of the ancien
régime the necessity of establishing credit institutions made itself felt, an example being
the Caisse d’escompte, established by Turgot in 1776 with a capital of 15 million livres,
later increased to 100 million. But, so far as credit was concerned, France was much
weaker than Holland and England.
The Liberal Tendencies of Commercial Policies. The Commercial Treaties
French commerce was favored by the activity of the administrators constituting the Conseil
de commerce, and especially by the liberal tendencies which, in the second half of the
eighteenth century, manifested themselves in commercial policies. This was in great part
the work of economists such as Vincent de Gournay (“intendant du commerce” from
1750 to 1758), and his followers, such as the Trudaines; it was also the work of the
physiocratic school, established by Quesnay, who opposed the mercantile theory and
claimed that there existed between the various nations a genuine economic solidarity.
Turgot and Condillac were interested in the freedom of trade even more than the followers of Quesnay.
The new ideas were first applied particularly to the question of grain, since the grain
trade was carefully regulated. In 1763 the royal power authorized the free transportation
of grain from one province to another, and in 1764 the free exportation of grain outside
of the kingdom was authorized. Although a reaction took place in 1769, Turgot in 1774
established free trade in grain, and after the partial reaction which followed his fall, the
declaration of June 17, 1787, established free circulation within the kingdom and foreign
exportation.
There was also a tendency in favor of the abolition of the excessive and prohibitive
customs duties, and the desire to conclude treaties of commerce with foreign powers
made itself felt. The effort to negotiate with Spain failed, but in 1778 a treaty of alliance,
as well as a commercial treaty, was signed with the new United States, containing the
“most favored nation” clause. But the commercial relations between France and the new
American republic were not very active before the Revolution. The Americans continued
to trade primarily with England.
More important still was the commercial treaty concluded with England in 1786. It
put an end to the commercial war, which had extended over an entire century, for the
commercial treaty of Utrecht had not been carried out. Only an active system of contraband relieved the prohibitive tariffs. The treaty of 1786 renewed almost all the stipulations
of 1713, declared that the wines of France would not pay higher duty than the wines of
Portugal, and the cambrics and lawns not more than the cloths of Holland, and placed
upon cotton goods and most other cloths an ad valorem duty of 12 per cent. But it made
no stipulation with regard to silks, which was very detrimental to the French industry. In
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 81
a general way the treaty was much more advantageous for England than it was for France,
in view of the superiority of English industry, brought about by the progress of machinery. The treaty of 1786 caused a very grave industrial crisis in France, affecting especially
cotton cloths, crockery, hardware and hides. It is therefore not surprising that during the
Revolution a very lively reaction was manifested against the liberal policy in vogue at the
end of the ancien régime.
Commerce with European Countries
We find real progress in the commercial relations between France and the other European countries.
With regard to Spain, to be sure, the second half of the eighteenth century witnessed
a relative decline of commerce, in spite of the political rapprochement of 1761. An order
of the king of Spain in 1779 even closed the Spanish market to certain French products.
Nevertheless the trade in cloths still constituted an important part of the French relations
with Spain, and in 1789 the exports rose to 66 million. The relations with Holland were no
longer as important as they had been in the seventeenth century. The treaty of 1786 with
England brought about a remarkable improvement in the commercial relations of that
country and France. French trade with Italy developed continually, as did also that with
the Han-seatic cities, Russia and the Scandinavian countries. Germany received many
manufactured products from France.
Trade with the Levant
This had always been considerable and did not decline, as has been claimed. But it did
not preserve the relative importance that it had enjoyed in the seventeenth century, a fact
explained by the development of trade with the Antilles. Marseilles, a free port, retained
the monopoly on the trade with the Levant. France always had control of this trade, being
favored by its friendly relations with Turkey. While the trade of the Levant with Holland,
England and Venice declined, France on the eve of the Revolution imported merchandise
to the value of 37 millions from the Levant and exported 28 millions thither, devoting 500
or 600 vessels to that trade. The French demand for silk, and especially cotton for
manufacturing purposes, and oil and skins for the soap factories and tanneries of Marseilles grew continually. On the other hand, the exportation of cloth from Languedoc,
which was very considerable up to 1773, decreased during the last years of the ancien
régime.
82 / Henri Sée
The Great Maritime and Colonial Commerce. The Indies Company
The system of privileged commercial companies was not abandoned. But Law had amalgamated them all into the Indies Company, which, after the failure of the system, was
reestablished in 1725. The Indies Company was instrumental in extending the colonial
domain of France. It exploited Louisiana during Law’s era. Later it extended the French
possessions in India, and its agent Dupleix established a veritable empire there, which
was irrevocably lost in 1763 by the Treaty of Paris. Deprived of most of its holdings, the
company was transformed into a simple commercial company. In 1769 its charter was
taken away from it, and trade with the Far East became free, until in 1785 a new Indies
Company was established. But this new company was not nearly so important as the old
one, and the merchants, now accustomed to freedom, did not hesitate to demand its
abolition.
Trade with the Antilles
The most important colonial trade during the second half of the eighteenth century was
that with the Antilles. These colonies developed considerably in the eighteenth century.
The sugar-cane, coffee, indigo and cotton plantations constituted the wealth of
Guadeloupe, Martinique and especially San Domingo (which had two important cities,
French Cap and Port-au-Prince), with a population of 400,000 inhabitants, of whom
42,000 were West Indian planters. On the eve of the Revolution the “American islands”
sent to France merchandise of a value of 185 millions (sugar and coffee, 134 millions;
cotton, 26 millions; indigo, ii millions; cocoa and ginger, over 10 millions) and imported
from the mother country merchandise of a value of 78 millions, especially manufactured
articles (42 millions), edibles, wines and brandy.
A very important subsidiary trade was slavery, which brought wealth to numerous
shippers of Havre and particularly of Bordeaux and Nantes. In 1789 the question of the
freeing of the slaves, brought up by the partisans of the new ideas, was a source of great
anxiety to the shippers, as well as the planters; at that time the Chamber of Commerce of
Bordeaux, in its instructions to its extraordinary commercial delegates, declared:
“France needs its colonies for the maintenance of its commerce, and consequently it
needs slaves in order to make agriculture pay in this part of the world, at least until some
other expedient may have been found.”
Another very important question at the end of the ancien régime was whether the
rules of the “colonial pact” should be maintained. This pact was in the nature of restrictive legislation by virtue of which the mother country reserved for itself at home and
abroad the monopoly of colonial trade. The planters could not ship their goods to foreign countries, nor could they receive directly the goods of foreign countries or of colonies depending upon other powers. But since the French Antilles could not do without
the timber, flour and fish of the English colonies of America—especially after the loss of
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 83
Canada and Louisiana—and since, on the other hand, the English colonies needed the
coffee, sugar and molasses of the “American islands” of France, there was an active
contraband trade which it was impossible to suppress. After 1763 Choiseul had to permit
the English to import cod to the Antilles at 8 livres per hundredweight. Then the decree of
August 30, 1784, gave foreign vessels access to some of the ports of the French islands.
This was a far-reaching innovation, in line with the liberal tendencies of commercial practise that tended to establish themselves, and caused considerable discontent among the
great merchants and shippers of the mother country.
The question of the colonial pact was aggravated, at the outbreak of the Revolution,
by the campaign that the philanthropists, the so-called “friends of the blacks,” engaged in
for the emancipation of the negro slaves. This campaign disturbed both the merchants
and the planters.
Moreover it was not only in France that colonial commerce encountered difficulties.
Ever since the seventeenth century the English, Dutch and French had been trying to
open the Spanish colonies for their trade, and their interloping efforts were in part successful. The Spanish colonial planters were very much embarrassed by the absurd methods of their mother country, and this was the principal cause for their defection early in
the nineteenth century. The English colonists of North America tried also to rid themselves of the impediments of the commercial legislation inaugurated by the Navigation
Act. It was largely for the purpose of doing this that they started the revolution that gave
birth to the United States. The economic expansion of the eighteenth century no longer
tolerated the restrictions of the old mercantilist policies. There opens up before us the
great vista of a movement that involved the most vital interests, a movement that was
truly international and affected French politics most profoundly at the end of the eighteenth century.
The French Ports in the Eighteenth Century
It is natural that the most flourishing commercial centers should have been the ports,
especially the Atlantic ports. Thus the prosperity of Bordeaux increased greatly during
the eighteenth century, especially on account of the trade with the Antilles. While in 1724
the maritime trade of Bordeaux amounted to 40 millions, it reached 250 millions just
before the Revolution. Three hundred ten vessels sailed for the Antilles, and brought
back merchandise to the value of 130 millions. The slave trade was also in a flourishing
condition. An entirely new industry grew up around the colonial trade, especially distilleries and refineries. Great fortunes were built up, as for example those of Bonnaf é and
Gradis. Nantes also developed greatly during the eighteenth century for the same reasons. Not less than 150 vessels left this port annually for the “islands of America.” The
colonial commerce and the slave trade enriched the merchants and shippers, and refineries and factories for Indian products sprang up. The trade with America also brought
84 / Henri Sée
prosperity to Rochelle, but during the second half of the century this port declined, not only
because of the loss of Canada and Louisiana, but also on account of the inadequacy of the
harbor, which was not deep enough for larger vessels. Saint-Malo, too, although retaining its
important trade in cloths with Spain, retrograded materially during the century, no doubt because the port, like Nantes, had no good means of communication with the rest of the kingdom. On the other hand, Havre made considerable strides after the Seven Years’ War and took
an ever more important part in the great maritime and colonial trade.
On the Mediterranean there was only one great port, namely Marseilles. Its development
was steady throughout the century. Marseilles no longer restricted itself to trade with the
Mediterranean region, but participated in increasing measure in world trade. It would have
done even better, had communication across the Alps been improved.
Great Spread of Commerce During the Eighteenth Century
How did foreign commerce as a whole develop in France during the eighteenth century? We
can answer this question with relative accuracy by consulting the tables of imports and exports
made by the customs agents. These tables became more detailed in the second half of the
eighteenth century. On the basis of these Arnould was able to write his instructive book “De la
balance du commerce” (On the Balance of Commerce) (1788). At the beginning of the reign of
Louis XV the imports were estimated at 93 millions and the exports at 122. Toward the middle
of the century considerable progress was already felt. Foreign trade rose in excess of 600
millions. The Seven Years’ War brought about a very grave crisis, but after the peace of 1763
the figures increased rapidly:
million livres
In the period from 1764 to 1776
725
In the period from 1777 to 1783
683
In the period from 1784 to 1788
1061
In 1787 the imports were estimated by Arnould at 611 millions, and the exports at 542.
The commercial treaty served even to increase the preponderance of imports.
Chaptal in his “Industrie française,” written in 1817, estimated the imports in 1789 at
634,365,000 francs and the exports at 438,477,000. But he remarks that the figure given for
imports includes 250 millions in merchandise coming from the French colonies, so that in
reality the exports exceeded the imports. France imported particularly manufactured articles,
raw materials for the textile industry, wood and colonial food-products. Its exports were,
above all, agricultural commodities (especially wine and brandy), silk, tobacco and colonial
products. Chaptal says that the trade with the Antilles was extremely important: “the products
of the colonies figured in all our shipments for more or less considerable sums, and they
formed almost the entire cargo of shipments intended for the north.”
All the preceding facts lead us to believe that from 1716 to 1789 the foreign trade of
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 85
France quadrupled, and it may be said furthermore that the figures given for 1825 are hardly
greater than those for 1788.
The progress of commercial transactions exercised a large influence upon industrial development. This is an economic phenomenon manifested in England as well as in France. The
fortunes amassed in maritime and commercial trade began to be used in industrial enterprises.
In this we can see the first symptoms of an economic revolution which, in France at least, did
not come to an end until the next century.
Works of Reference
Afanassiev, Le commerce des céréales en France au XVIIIe siècle (French translation), Paris,
1894.
Arnould, De la balance du commerce, 1788.
Ph. Barrey, Le commerce maritime du Havre (in Mémoires et documents pour servir à l’histoire
de l’industrie et du commerce, by J. Hayem, vols. V and VI).
Chaptal, L’industrie française, 1817, 2 vols.
F. Dumas, Étude sur le traité de commerce de 1786 entre la France et l’Angleterre, Toulouse, 1904.
Gerbaux and Schmidt, Procès-verbaux des comités d’agriculture et de commerce de la
Constituante, de la Législative et de la Convention, 1906–1910, 4 vols.
Letaconnoux, Les subsistances et le commerce des grains en Bretagne au XVIIIe siècle,
Rennes, 1909.
E. Levasseur, Histoire du commerce de la France, 1911.
Malvezin, Histoire du commerce de Bordeaux, 3 vols., 1892.
Germain Martin and Bezancon, Histoire du crédit en France sous le règne de Louis XIV,
Paris, 1913.
Alfred Martineau, Dupleix et l’Inde française, Paris, 1920–1926, 2 vols, in 8°.
Paul Masson, Histoire du commerce français dans le Levant au XVIIIe siècle, Paris, 1912.
H. Sée, L’évolution commerciale et industrielle de la France sous l’ancien régime, Paris,
Giard, 1925.
———, Le commerce de Saint-Malo au XVIIIe siècle (Mémoires et documents pour servir à
l’histoire du commerce et de l’industrie, by J. Hayem, 9th séries, 1925).
———, Les origines du capitalisme moderne, Paris, coll. Armand Colin, 1926.
Turgot, Œuvres, published by Schelle, Paris, 1913–1923, 5 vols.
Marcel Vigne, La banque à Lyon du XV au XVIIIe siècle, 1902 (thesis).
Author of Considérations sur le commerce de Bretagne, 1796.
Vignon, Étude historique sur l’administration des voies publiques en France, Paris, 1863, 3
vols.
Henry Weber, La Compagnie française des Indes, 1904 (thesis).
Chapter 8: Industrial Development in the Eighteenth
Century
In the first half of the eighteenth century we witness the development of the manufactures, organized as they had been during the age of Colbert. As in the preceding century,
they were directly dependent upon the royal power, which exercised a close supervision
over them.
Progress of Industrial Administration
It is not surprising that industrial administration was improved. The Council of Commerce continued to play a very active rôle up to the end of the ancien régime, as is
shown by its minutes published by Bonnassieux and Lelong; it tried to settle “all the
difficulties regarding commerce on land and sea, factories and manufactures.” Since
1730 it had a director of commerce at its head, a person of some importance. This
position was held a long time by the eminent Trudaine family, father and son.
The deputies of commerce, elected in theory by the merchants or the chambers of
commerce, played only a passive rôle. But sometimes they drew up interesting memorials. More important were the chambers of commerce themselves, which developed in the
course of the century. But they were more interested in commerce than in industry. The
factory inspectors, created by Colbert, were maintained until the Revolution, and even
some inspectors general were created. It seems that they acquitted themselves conscientiously of their difficult and delicate functions. Some of them, especially in the second
half of the eighteenth century, were distinguished men, among them Desmarets, Hellot,
Dupont de Nemours and Roland de la Platière. The “intendants” paid ever more attention
to industrial questions. Not only did the administration often require them to make inquir-
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 87
ies on the state of “commerce,” but frequently they took the initiative in encouraging
some product or other, especially new industries. From 1744 on the mines, iron works,
glass factories and paper mills were more specially brought under their control. The right
of jurisdiction in industrial matters extended more and more.
The Manufacturing Establishments and Their Monopolies
The manufacturing establishments always depended upon the royal administration, of which
they were in many respects the creations.
Beside the state factories, such as the Government Tapestry Works, the Soap Works and
the porcelain works at Sèvres, of which the king was the patron, there were a great number of
royal establishments, for the creation of which a government authorization was necessary. The
royal establishments were encouraged by subventions, loans without interest, and direct and
indirect bounties. Often they received also pecuniary aid from the provincial estates or the city
municipalities.
The establishments, engaged particularly in the textile industry, secured the monopoly of
some particular product within a certain radius. Thus the Van Robais of Abbeville possessed,
within a radius of ten leagues, the monopoly for the manufacture of fine Dutch cloths. Although people were beginning to realize the disadvantages of monopolies, there were more
establishments created during the first half of the eighteenth century.
Regulation
Regulation, one of the essential characteristics of the old industrial organization, was maintained. It even developed further around 1750. New regulations were constantly being made
“because the precautions taken by the first regulations were not sufficient,” or, as a circular of
Orry stated in 1740, in order to forestall “the negligence and bad faith of the manufacturers and
merchants.” More minutely even than in the age of Colbert the regulations determined the
quality and nature of the raw materials to be used, the nature of the equipment, the process of
manufacture, and the quality of the various manufactured objects. In 1735 the royal authority
regulated the glass industry, and in 1739 the paper industry.
The administration tried also to render the regulations more effective by means of more
rigorous control. The number of offices for factory control was increased, and their methods
were improved.
The regulations were a cause of continual vexation and a perpetual hindrance to industry.
They were also an obstacle to inventions. For example, from 1719 to 1731 a struggle was
necessary in order to obtain the right to use wrought lead, which was a considerable improvement over cast lead, the use of which was prescribed by laws and regulations. The needs of
production could no longer be brought into harmony with the petty regulations of the old
organization of labor.
88 / Henri Sée
The Progress of Industry in the First Half of the Eighteenth Century
Nevertheless great industrial progress was made during the period from 1715 to 1750,
especially beginning with 1730. Thus the manufacture of silk and of gold and silver cloth
extended to Paris and the south. In Languedoc the cloth industry seems to have been
quite flourishing. In the east and in Normandy the cotton industry had developed. Being
a new industry, both in England and France, it escaped regulation more than other industries. Then there were new tin works and, in Dauphiné, new steel works. In Dauphiné,
especially in Angoumois, there were new paper mills. Coal mines, little exploited before,
were exploited more methodically, both in the north and in the Saint-Étienne basin. The
mines at Anzin and Carmaux became active, and the decree of 1744 gave a new impetus
to the coal industry. Just as much attention was paid to their development as there was to
the problem presented by deforestation, for which the iron works and other factories
were held responsible.
The New Economic Doctrines
The industrial changes were certainly hastened by the new ideas that made themselves
felt toward the middle of the eighteenth century. The cause of commercial and industrial
freedom was sustained first of all by Vincent de Gournay, whom an observation of the
facts had enlightened, and who saw in the system of guilds, regulations, privileges and
monopolies so many obstacles in the path of production and consumption. Hence it was
necessary to free industrial production of all hindrances.
Gournay undertook an active campaign in favor of the abolition of the guilds and the
abandonment of the regulations. As director of commerce he succeeded at least in making the regulations and the monopolies less harsh in practise. Due to his influence the
bureau of commerce granted no more exclusive privileges. He succeeded in winning
over to his ideas a wide following among the young administrators, such as Trudaine and
Turgot. The influence of Quesnay and his disciples was also considerable. After 1750 the
physiocratic doctrine was actively propagated, tending to do away with the old mercantilist conceptions.
Weakening of the System of Regulations
As a matter of fact the system of regulations was considerably modified in the second
half of the eighteenth century. A noteworthy indication of this was the discontinuance of
the prohibition on printed and dyed cloths, which had remained in force during the entire
first half of the century. From 1750 on a movement toward freedom made itself felt. Then
a hateful reversion to the prohibition, about 1755, provoked the great “dispute on prints,”
carried on by men such as Forbonnais, a champion of tradition, and, on the other hand,
by the friends of freedom, such as Gournay and Morellet. The latter were answered in
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 89
turn by the “Summary observations of the manufacturers of Lyons, Rouen, Tours and
the Six Bodies.” Finally the edict of 1759, promulgated by the controller general Silhouette, authorized the admission and manufacture of prints. That was the beginning of an
era of great prosperity for the new industry of print cloths and calico.
From this time on, although regulation continued to have legal sanction, it was not
applied so strictly any more. This tendency was manifested everywhere. In Languedoc
the government even recommended to the inspectors to watch over the observation of
the regulations concerning the cloth industry with a spirit of lenience, and to concern
themselves only “with the good faith of the manufacturers.” In his letters patent of May
5, 1779, Necker recognized that it was impossible to apply the old regulations literally.
Cloth manufactured in accordance with these regulations was to bear a special mark, and
the rest only a “mark of grace,” and the nature of the dye was also to be indicated. New
letters of June 4, 1780, abolished, in the woolen industry, certain provisions relative to
quality, length and width of the pieces. They explained also the nature of the reform: “It
has been our intention to encourage talent and the spirit of invention, exempting from
every examination and inspection all cloth which the manufacturer desires to produce in
free trade, but requiring that cloth so manufactured be plainly marked, so that the confidence of the public may never be imposed upon.”
The fall of Necker marked a reaction from this point of view. Toward the outbreak of
the Revolution many goods were sold without any such label. Poor work was no longer
penalized by fines or confiscation. In practise the old regulations had lost all their effectiveness.
Extension of Rural Industry
One of the characteristic features of the industrial development of the eighteenth century
was the extension of rural industry. It is a strong indication of the hold gained by commercial capitalism upon manufacturing.
The edict of 1762, which gave to the inhabitants of the rural sections the right to
manufacture any kind of cloth without membership in the guilds, did not have the importance that one might attribute to it. Without doubt it facilitated the progress of rural
industry, but it merely confirmed an existing state of affairs.
Clear distinction can be made between two types of rural industry. The first applied
to regions in which the agricultural resources were insufficient and in which city life was
not very active, as in Brittany and Lower Maine. In these sections the rural textile industry
did not compete with the few existing urban trades. The merchants restricted themselves
exclusively to commercial transactions, did not direct production, and did not distribute
the raw materials, which the peasant secured on his farm. Rather did they devote themselves to the bleaching and finishing of the cloth. Only in exceptional cases did they
undertake production. In Brittany and Lower Maine the rural industry did not give birth
90 / Henri Sée
to capitalist industry. When it declined at the end of the eighteenth and in the nineteenth
century, these provinces became almost exclusively agricultural.
On the other hand, in sections like Flanders, Picardy and Upper Normandy, where
agriculture prospered, and urban industry was plentiful, and where rural industry developed especially because many peasants were deprived of property, the rural artisan depended often upon manufacturers who gave him orders and directions for his work. In
any case the merchants distributed among the rural laborers the raw material and even
furnished them with the looms. There were those who supported rural production for the
purpose of ruining the urban industry, as the masters and journeymen of Troyes complained. Others at the end of the ancien régime, in the hosiery and cotton spinning
trades, introduced mechanical looms, a thing which made the competition of the rural
sections still more dangerous for the urban industry. For the rise of an industry on a large
scale and the transformation of the merchant-manufacturer into a captain of industry, it
was necessary that the trades be concentrated in factories.
The Foothold of Commercial Capitalism in Industry
In the urban trades of the textile industry we often see the same influence of commercial
capital, which had the effect of reducing the otherwise independent artisans to the rank of
wage-earners. The most striking illustration is furnished by the silk industry of Lyons.
Even in the seventeenth century distinction had been made between master-merchants
and master-workmen, as the regulation of 1667 shows. The regulation of 1744 perpetuated the economic dependence of the master-workmen, who became the hired employees of the merchants. Their dependence was made all the more complete by the fact that
the merchants furnished them with the raw material, as well as with the patterns, and often
advanced them the sums necessary for the purchase of equipment. Finally the price of
the workmanship was fixed by the merchant; the wages were determined only after the
completion of the work.
In the cloth trade a similar development, but a less general one, was noticed. The
influence of commercial capitalism upon labor can be explained especially on technical
grounds, because of the multiplicity of operations necessary in the process of manufacture. The wool had to be washed and scoured. It was beaten, carded and combed, and
then it was given to the spinners of either sex.
After the spinning came the winding, spooling and warping. Then the material was
dyed, and if it was carded wool, it had to be felted. Finally there were the finishing
touches, such as teaseling, clipping and scraping. In this way it is possible to explain the
intervention of the merchant, who took it upon himself to direct the entire process of
manufacturing, and this intervention became still more necessary when industry spread
to the rural sections. This commercial concentration, which at the end of the eighteenth
century was complete in the greatest centers (Sedan, Reims, Louviers and Elbeuf), was
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 91
not manifested everywhere. Sometimes, as at Amiens, the work was distributed among
several manufacturers successively, independent of one another. In the south the small
manufacturers were still numerous.
The Origins of Industrial Concentration
Where commercial concentration was highly developed, industrial concentration often
followed. The merchant-manufacturers were interested in grouping their workmen under
the same roof, in order to supervise their work and avoid the expense of transportation.
This was the case with a certain number of cloth manufacturers in the south, as those at
Trivalle, near Carcassonne, at Villeneuve, and near Clermont. At Montauban a manufacturer had a building constructed which cost him 125,000 livres. At Reims almost half of
the trades were grouped in factories. At Louviers the concentration was still more marked.
Fifteen manufacturers there employed thousands of workmen. One of them constructed
an enormous factory at a cost of 200,000 livres; it sheltered five different factory units.
In the printing of cloth, industrial concentration on a large scale took place very early,
even before the introduction of machinery. This is explained if we consider, as Ch. Ballot
says, that “the mechanical conditions of manufacture necessitated the concentration of
great capital, the congregation of workmen in shops and the division of work among
them.” Much space was necessary for bleaching of cloth, vast buildings for the workshops and large rooms for drying. The equipment was complicated and costly, and vast
supplies of raw materials were necessary. Furthermore the many operations required a
division of labor among many classes of specialized workmen, all of whom had to work
in the same plant. It is not surprising that at the end of the ancien régime this industry
occupied more than one hundred factories producing prints of a value in excess of 12
millions of livres. Most of them belonged to companies formed by partners or by stock
companies, which were very prosperous. The Oberkampf company of Jouy, for example, had a capital of nearly nine millions in 1789.
The Progress of Machinery
But the concentration of work and industry, a condition necessary for the development
of a great capitalist industry, could not become a general phenomenon except through
the triumph of machinery. Yet in the eighteenth century machinery in France had been
introduced only in a few industries.
Machines appeared first in the silk mills early in the century, and then developed as a
result of the inventions of Vaucanson. This industry also gave rise to great factories, such
as those of Jubié at Sône.
But in the cotton industry—a new enterprise— the use of machinery developed
most intensively. The mechanical inventions came from England. John Kay’s invention
of the flying shuttle led to many improvements. We owe to our English neighbors also the
92 / Henri Sée
spinning jenny (invented in 1765), the water-frame, invented by Arkwright in 1767, and
the mule-jenny of Crompton. The spinning-jenny, being a small loom with arms, did not
at all harm the rural industry that was scattered here and there. The mule-jenny, on the
other hand, favored concentration.
Even before 1760 Holker had advocated the introduction of English machines. But
later Milne, another Englishman, played a particularly important part in manufacturing
looms for use in the rural sections. He worked at Muette. Between 1775 and 1780 the
inventions of Arkwright and Cartwright began to be introduced in France. Important
concentrated factories for cotton spinning were established, for example those of Lecler
at Brives, those of Martin and Flesselles at Amiens, and those of the Duke of Orléans—
that great captain of industry—at Orléans and Montargis.
To be sure, France was employing only 900 jennies at the time, while there were
20,000 in use in England. Only a beginning had been made. Yet in 1789 the progress of
machinery was taking shape and was destined to develop in the course of the following
century. The memorial of Tribert, inspector of manufacturers in the section of Orléans,
noted the progress of cotton-spinning machinery in 1790, which was doing away with the
spinning-wheel. He said:
“For the past two years there have been brought to Orléans a considerable number
of these machines, newly constructed in France on the model of those used in England
(Arkwright’s machines and mule-jennies). There has just been constructed a huge building for housing them. The director plans to operate 6000 spools day and night by means
of a steam pump, which will make it possible to spin 1000 pounds of cotton in 24 hours.
The annual output will amount to 900,000 livres in value.”
And Tribert adds:
“By means of these machines, the number of which is beginning to increase greatly
in France, it will soon be possible to decrease the price of spun cotton, but the profit on
this product will also diminish in proportion, so that it will be to the interest of the manufacturers to have their cloth finished into garments.”
This is equivalent to saying that the process of dyeing will also have to be improved.
In some paper mills, notably in the one at An-nonay, machines were substituted for
manual labor. But most of these mills employed only a few laborers under any circumstances.
In the metallurgical industry wood-burning furnaces were beginning to be replaced
by coke-burning furnaces, as had been done at Montcenis on a large scale. In 1787 the
stock company of Crausot, comprising 4000 shares of a value of 2500 livres per share
was founded. It had sufficient capital to enable it to use steam-propelled machines and
steam-hammers, an excellent but expensive equipment.
A memorial of 1787 contains significant facts in this matter:
“It is possible to cast in the four furnaces ten million livres of cast-iron per year, at
the rate of 2,500,000 livres per furnace. Thus the navy department could if necessary
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 93
receive from Montcenis 2000 cannon in one year.... The steam engines that operate the
bellows, hammers and drills of Montcenis take the place of the waterpower that the other
foundries of the kingdom use. The railways that have been built at Montcenis, in imitation
of those found in England, where some are five or six leagues in length, seem very
expensive at first glance. But when one sees on this railway a single horse pulling the
weight of five horses, one ceases to marvel at the scope of such an outlay.”
In the foundry of Indret, near Nantes, established in 1777, there were expended
307,000 livres in 1778; 577,000 in 1779; and 830,000 in 1780. But the factories of Creusot
and Indret were rather exceptional. Almost all the iron factories were still very modest
enterprises with primitive tools and only eight or ten laborers. The foundries were scattered everywhere, especially in the forest regions, for they used only wood as fuel.
The Coal Mines. Great Capitalistic Exploitations
The coal mines indicated most clearly the coming triumph of great capitalistic industry.
As a result of the decree of 1744, forbidding the exploitation of mines except by royal
concession, great companies undertook the working of the coal mines at the expense of
the owners and the former operators. For they alone were able to afford the necessary
mechanical innovations, the soundings, the opening of the levels and pits, ventilation, and
the draining of water. They alone could afford the steam-driven machines, the so-called
pompes à feu. These stock companies, for example those of Alais, Carmaux and Anzin,
managed by energetic and intelligent business men and supported by enterprising gentlemen, such as the prince of Croy and the chevalier de Solages, had the appearance of
great capitalistic enterprises. The Anzin company, in 1789, had 4000 laborers and 600
horses; it used 12 steam engines; it mined 3,750,000 hundredweights of coal; its profits
amounted to 1,200,000 livres, although the price of coal had decreased appreciably.
Scientific management, concentration of many workmen, application of considerable
capital—here we have all the characteristics of great capitalistic industry manifesting
themselves in the coal industry before the end of the ancien régime.
Petty Industry Always Predominant
But in 1789 the era of machinery and industrial concentration was only in its infancy. The
predominant system in all France was that of petty enterprises employing only a few
workmen. We take as an example the generality of Orléans, described to us by the inspector Tribert in 1790. There was at Orléans, to be sure, a great cotton-spinning factory,
and another was being erected at Montargis. But the stockings were manufactured in 55
shops employing 2287 workmen. These were scattered throughout the city and its outskirts. Knitted hosiery was a rural industry that employed 12,000 persons at Beauce. The
woolen goods and dyes were in the hands of rather poor manufacturers. Gloves were
manufactured by 21 masters, who employed 900 workmen.
94 / Henri Sée
No doubt commercial capitalism began to influence industry in France on the eve of
the Revolution. But the development was much slower than in England. We can detect
only symptoms of an industrial revolution. The revolution itself was not to take place
until half a century later.
Works of Reference
Beside the works cited in chapters VI and VII, consult the following:
Ch. Ballot, L’introduction du machinisme dans l’industrie française, published by Cl.
Gevel (Comité des travaux historiques, section d’histoire moderne et contemporaine,
no. IX, 1923).
Bonnassieux and Lelong, Inventaire analytique des procès-verbaux du Conseil de Commerce, Paris, 1900.
F. Bourdais and R. Durand, L’industrie et le commerce de la toile en Bretagne au
XVIIIe siècle (Comité des Travaux historiques, 1922, No. VII).
Hubert and Georges Bourgin, L’industrie sidérurgique en France à la veille de la
Révolution, 1920 (Collection des Documents économiques de la Révolution).
E. Depitre, La toile peinte en France aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles, Paris, 1912.
Léon Dutil, L’état économique du Languedoc à la fin de l’ancien régime, Paris, 1911.
Justin Gedart, L’ouvrier en soie de Lyon, 1901.
Julien Hyem, Mémoires et documents pour servir à l’histoire du commerce et de l’industrie
en France, 8 séries, Paris, 1911–1924.
Histoire documentaire de l’industrie à Mulhouse, publications de la Société industrielle
de Mulhouse, 2 vols., 1901.
Lavainville, L’industrie du fer en France, 1922 (Collection Armand Colin).
F. Lavasseur, Histoire des classes ouvrières et de l’industrie en France avant 1789, 2nd
ed., 1901, 2 vols.
Robert Lévy, Histoire économique de l’industrie cotonnière en Alsace, Paris, 1912.
Paul Mantoux, La révolution industrielle au XVIIIe siècle, Paris, 1905.
Germain Martin, La grande industrie sous le règne de Louis XV, Paris, 1900.
———, L’industrie et le commerce dans le Velay aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles, Le Puy,
1900.
F. Pariset, Histoire de la fabrique lyonnaise, Lyon, 1901.
Pierre Clerget, L’industrie de la soie en France, 1925 (Collection Armand Colin).
Marcel Rouff, Les mines de charbon en France au XVIIIe siècle, Paris, 1922.
Henri Sée, Études sur les mines bretonnes au XVIIIe siècle (Annales de Bretagne, vol.
XXXVII, 1926).
Eug. Carlé, L’industrie rurale en France au XVIIIe siècle, Paris, 1910.
Chapter 9: The Classes of Workmen and Merchants
We must now examine the social effects of the economic phenomena that we have just
discussed. Among the industrial and commercial population the differences were accentuated during the course of the eighteenth century. This was a consequence of the economic expansion.
I. The Artisans
Their Mode of Life
Although this had always been inferior, it seems to have become even less satisfactory in
the eighteenth century. In most of the provincial cities, many masters who were affected
by the financial ruin of their guilds were embarrassed, had a low standard of living, and
found themselves reduced to a condition bordering upon misery, as is shown by the
report of the governor of Brittany under date of 1755.
In the eighteenth century, as in the seventeenth, their life was rather penurious. Their
quarters were uncomfortable. At Angers, as we are told by the “Souvenirs d’un
nonagénaire,” “the lodgings of the artisans were for the most part very crowded. Outside
of their shop or workroom, they often had one large sleeping room for the whole family,
and one other room for the journeymen, whom they were accustomed to feed and lodge.”
The most frequented shops looked quite wretched. But at the end of the eighteenth
century a few shops with glass windows began to appear, at least in the large cities.
The food was coarse, often insufficient. The wife of a cutler at Châtellerault described it as follows: “Bread and soup several times a day, because meat is too expensive; soup with herbs, soup with carrots, and soup with onions and oil. At home water is
96 / Henri Sée
drunk, but on Mondays the master goes to the inn with his journeymen and drinks wine.”
Their Condition Was Not Uniform
Moreover, the condition of the artisans varied considerably according to the trade that
they followed. The only ones who were really comfortable were those who dealt with
food supplies, as the innkeepers, the pastry-cooks, the confectioners, sometimes the
bakers, and more rarely the butchers, whose trade was not very lucrative. Those dealing
with clothing were not so well off. They were divided into many poorly situated classes
and competed with one another. This was true of the tailors and shoemakers. In the
building trades most of the masters were not very affluent, although we find among the
masons and carpenters contractors who possessed some capital. In the urban iron industries no sign of such a transformation was apparent as yet. The manufacturers of
edge-tools and the turners were still in very poor circumstances. Among the dyers and
leather workers the conditions were quite varied.
Artisans Losing Their Economic Independence
We find a small minority of artisans tending to rise above their class, but the great majority were losing their independence more and more and were in danger of becoming mere
wage-earners. This was the case with many engaged in the cloth industry, who came ever
more under the economic domination of the clothing merchants. It was the case particularly with the silk workers at Lyons, as has been shown quite conclusively by M. Justin
Godart. The regulation of 1744, which strengthened that of 1667, added more severity to
the “letter of credit,” which formulated the work that the master was obliged to deliver to
the merchant, making it very difficult to sever relations with the merchant for whom he
was working, and fixing the price of the work without consultation of the master. Thus an
aristocracy of merchants held the proletarian workmen under their thumb. This was the
result of an unfortunate development. The merchants, who often had considerable capital at their disposal, reached a point where they dictated to the workmen, who had no
ready cash. This condition became more prevalent with the increase of production and
the growth of the market.
As a matter of fact, the price paid for work by the merchants was not enough to
afford the masters a decent livelihood. Many of them were reduced to misery and clamored
in vain for an equitable schedule. Their budget always showed a deficit, even when business was good. The working hours were excessively long. The abbot Bertholon declared: “Invariably the master-workmen rises before dawn and continues his work until
well into the night, in order by long hours to make up for the inadequate compensation.”
Revolts, too, broke out frequently. They were repressed harshly and did not serve to
improve the lot of the workmen.
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 97
II. The Tradesmen, Merchants and Factory Directors
Diversity of Conditions
Among the guilds of merchants some members, by virtue of their economic condition,
belonged to the high bourgeoisie.. These were the apothecaries, the printers and book
dealers, the goldsmiths, the haberdashers, and the cloth and silk merchants. But in other
guilds very diverse conditions were found. This was true of the grocers. Furthermore,
there were very many merchants on a small scale, among them the old-clothes merchants, particularly the retailers, the hucksters, etc.
Among the commercial bourgeoisie the highest place was held by the wholesale
merchants, who escaped the guild organization. We have already noted the part played
by them, and how in the textile industry especially they began to exercise their economic
domination over the artisans. They paved the way directly for the great industrial employers. In the ports like Nantes, Bordeaux and Marseilles the shippers were the most important class among the merchants and played a leading part. Besides, they did not limit
themselves to fitting out vessels. Often they engaged in commission business and handled maritime insurance.
The directors of manufacturing establishments must be put into the same class.
Sometimes they seem to have been great capitalists, or grantees of mines. Among them
were Mathieu and Tubeuf, operators on a large scale, who headed important stock companies.
The wholesale merchants already possessed a leading position in the ranks of the
third estate. Thus, in the electoral assemblies of 1789, they often eclipsed the masters of
the guilds, although they were not as numerous as the latter, and frequently they, together
with the lawyers and members of the high bourgeoisie, were alone instrumental in drawing up the memorials of the third estate. Opposition made itself felt between the merchants and the artisans, while the masters of the trades and the journeymen usually had
identical interests.
The Mode of Life of the Commercial Bourgeoisie
Since there were great differences between the condition of the simple tradesmen and
that of the merchants, their mode of life was also quite different. The tradesmen, even
when they were in easy circumstances, lived very simply. They had no living room and
ate their meals in the kitchen. On the other hand, the merchants led a life that was often
more luxurious than that of the nobility. The ship-owners of Nantes, and those of Bordeaux and Saint-Malo, had splendid homes and enjoyed all the luxuries of life. In the
second half of the century we find a greater development in luxury and comfort. In small
cities, such as Laval, the cloth merchants built new houses or rebuilt and refurnished their
98 / Henri Sée
old ones. They were no longer contented with one heated room, and they no longer lived
in the kitchen. We find them striving for a prosperity that seems quite modern.
III. The Journeymen
The Various Categories
Among these we must distinguish between the workmen of the organized trades and
those of the factories. The latter suffered less restriction, and often no regular apprenticeship was required of them. It was also easier for them to avoid passing through the
various grades. Yet on the other hand they were subject to the more severe discipline of
the shops. It was also difficult for them to quit their factory. They needed a written permit
for this purpose. This was already equivalent to the obligation of the livret. Upon those
who left the country and who were considered deserters, severe penalties were inflicted.
The workmen of the organized trades were treated more paternally. The masters often
looked upon them as belonging to their own class.
Living Conditions
The standard of life of the laborer did not differ much from that of the master, although
the former was inferior to the latter. Generally the laborer lived in an uncomfortable attic
room, and his primitive furnishings were hardly worth more than 100 livres. By his dress
he was distinguished from other social classes to a much greater extent than today. When
the journeyman was given lodging and board by his master, his living conditions were apt
to be quite variable, depending upon the particular trade and the master. The stationers,
for example, succeeded in obtaining very good treatment.
The harshness of conditions among the journeymen is shown particularly by the
length of the working hours and the wages.
As a general rule the day began quite early and ended late. In some of the shops at
Versailles the hours were from four in the morning until eight at night. In most of the
trades at Paris the day was sixteen hours long, and the binders and printers, who worked
only fourteen, were considered privileged. It is true that work was less intense than it is in
our day and that holidays imposed by the festival-days were frequent. Nevertheless the
working days were very burdensome.
The wages varied considerably, depending upon the trades and the locality. The
most fortunate journeymen, the skilled workmen in the cities, could earn 40 sous. But in
the textile industry the average hardly exceeded 20 or 25 sous. In Brittany a weaver rarely
received more than 10 or 12 sous, and a female spinner five or six sous. In the mines too
the laborers often earned less than 15 sous and the skilled workmen between 20 and 25.
In the cities there were numerous workmen engaged in trades on a small scale who could
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 99
not earn a living. To be sure, the wages rose during the reign of Louis XVI, but during
that period the cost of living increased to an even larger extent, so that the condition of
the workmen seems to have become worse.
An indication of the precarious condition of the workmen is furnished by the fact
that whenever a crisis came numerous workmen were positively reduced to mendicity.
This misery was particularly striking during the crisis of 1787–1789 and helped to bring
about the Revolution.
Labor Organization. The Unions of Journeymen
The reason why the working class did not succeed in improving its condition is found in
the fact that there was no strong labor organization.
Of course the journeymen, excluded from the brotherhoods of the masters, formed
special brotherhoods, which it was found impossible to abolish. They formed also general organizations, that is, unions of journeymen, which were restricted almost exclusively to the itinerant trades of the tour de France. But the so-called compagnons du
devoir, or dévorants, and the compagnons du devoir de liberté, or gavots, bore only a
slight resemblance to the modern trades unions. They were secret associations, in which
a ritual and secret proceedings played an important part. Moreover the unions of journeymen constituted organizations of defense and offense against the masters. They established mutual aid and exercised influence in the hiring of workmen, to the great dissatisfaction of the masters, who were often black-listed by means of circular letters sent
around to other journeymen. Accordingly they rendered great service to those engaged in
the trades of the tour de France, that is the itinerant trades. But the rivalry existing
between the unions of journeymen, which was often manifested by bloody brawls, hindered them from playing a really effective part. This deplorable rivalry shows clearly to
what a slight extent the laboring class had as yet become conscious of its collective
interests.
And yet the workmen in certain trades stood out because of the strength of their
organization. An example is furnished by the stationers, who through their organization
obtained better living conditions. Another example is found in the case of the hatters,
who went so far as to fraternize with the Belgian workers, as M. des Marez has shown. It
seems also that there existed at this early date mutual aid societies that in reality were
organizations calculated to resist oppression.
Strikes
Temporary coalitions became more frequent during the eighteenth century than they had
been before. But they were above all violent outbreaks of anger that were quickly suppressed. Some strikes, such as the strike of the Paris printers in 1724, were caused by the
desire to prevent foreign or incompetent workmen from being employed in the shops
100 / Henri Sée
with a view to decreasing the wages. Others, such as the strike of the binders in Paris
(1776), aimed to reduce the working hours. But the chief issue was that of wages. In
1724–1725, when there was an effort made to reduce wages for the sake of decreasing
prices, general commotion was felt among the artisans in Paris, but it was quickly suppressed. In the reign of Louis XVI there were extended strikes in Paris; even the day
laborers, hitherto unorganized, formed an association. In 1787 a serious strike broke out
among the employes of the hat industry at Marseilles.
But generally the strikes failed because they were almost always restricted to a single
guild or a single city. On the other hand, the masters joined forces against the journeymen
in an effort to keep down wages and to intimidate those of their own colleagues who were
disposed to yield to the claims of the workmen.
The Attitude of the Public Authorities
We should take into consideration the fact that during the eighteenth century the municipal powers and the royal authority were particularly hostile to the claims of the workers.
During the era of Louis XVI the strikes of the shearers at Sedan and those of the journeymen at Paris were repressed with severity.
Even when the state inclined to a relaxation of the regulations concerning manufacturing, it was actively engaged in strengthening the regulations applying to the personnel.
It tried especially to bind the workman to his employer. This is shown clearly by the
letters patent of January, 1749, which forbade the workers, on pain of a fine of 100 livres,
to leave an employer without written consent. Likewise the journeymen were forbidden
to hold meetings, “form brotherhoods” and “intrigue for the sake of getting one another
positions with certain masters, or for the sake of leaving them, or in order to prevent
masters in any way from selecting their own workmen, whether they be Frenchmen or
foreigners.” In this way an attempt was made to subject the workman to the master, the
purpose being to favor manufacturing and to increase production.
The edict of Turgot of 1776 prohibited all journeymen’s associations, as well as all
masters’ guilds, and the progressive minister kept in force all police measures aimed at
the associations of workmen. Finally the police regulation of September 12, 1781, accentuated the earlier restrictive regulations and prohibited the workmen from forming brotherhoods, holding meetings and intriguing for the sake of increasing their wages. They
could leave their master only after having given him notice in advance and finished the
work in hand. They could not be accepted by another master if they did not present a
written dismissal from their previous master. The obligation of the livret had become
quite general. All authorities, parliaments, governors and police officers, decreed against
coalitions and assemblies and condemned workmen as “intriguers.” Great hostility was
shown even against mutual aid associations that restricted themselves, as did the association of crockery workers of Nevers, to assuring their members of aid in case of sickness
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 101
and to helping the aged. The aid society founded by the hatters of Marseilles in 1772 was
brutally suppressed. Undoubtedly it was feared, perhaps not without reason, that these
associations served only as blinds for more militant organizations.
There Was No Labor Problem as Yet
Another proof that the laboring class did not yet count in the social makeup of the ancien
régime is the fact that it hardly participated in the national conferences prior to the summoning of the States General in 1789. While the peasants had opportunity to express
their grievances in numerous parish memorials, the journeymen were hardly able to get a
hearing. Only the masters of the trades took an active part in the electoral assemblies.
Hence we possess only a few memorials of the journeymen of Troyes and Marseilles,
and generally their demands were identical with those of the masters. This is true at least
of the workers of Troyes, who, like their employers, rose against the practises of the
merchants, protesting against the introduction of machinery and the extension of rural
industry. It is quite clear that in 1789 the workmen did not realize their own interests as a
class. They had no clear idea of the reforms necessary in labor legislation, and when in
1791 the law of Le Chapelier prohibited all labor coalitions, it seems that the laboring
class of Paris did not become unusually indignant. They continued to agitate almost
exclusively in favor of higher wages.
Thus the labor question did not in any sense present itself in the way that it did later.
The struggle between capital and labor was not yet clearly discernible. Perhaps it loomed
in a hazy manner, but it did not appear clearly until its theoretical formulation had been
laid down. And this is explained readily if we consider that there were still relatively few
workmen, that industry on a small scale was still predominant, that machinery had scarcely
made its appearance, that industrial concentration was only in its beginnings and also that
the thinkers who in the nineteenth century were interested in industrial organization, turned
in the eighteenth century primarily toward political organization, the agrarian question, or
increased production. The social question of 1789 was a question concerning the peasants, and it is this that the revolutionary assemblies, under the stress of agrarian troubles,
had to settle.
Shall we say that the laboring class did not play any part at all during the revolutionary crisis? Artisans and journeymen, as M. M. Rouff has shown in several interesting
articles, formed the active element during the revolutionary days and had an. important
place in the popular gatherings. Buf; the social question stirring the popular masses was
not that of labor organization; it was rather one of food. Unemployment, misery and fear
of starvation were the motives that impelled the proletariat of the cities. Before the labor
question could rise, a profound economic transformation, the development of industry
on a large scale and the triumph of machinery were necessary. With the rise of these
phenomena, and by virtue of the socialist doctrines, the laboring class became clearly
102 / Henri Sée
conscious of its interests as a class.
Works of Reference
Beside the works cited in chapters VI and VII consult the following:
Camille Bloch, Études d’histoire économique de la France (1760–1789), Paris, 1900.
A. Babeau, Les artisans et les domestiques d’autrefois, Paris, 1886.
Bourde de la Rogerie, Notes sur les papeteries des environs de Morlaix (Bulletin historique
et philologique, 1911).
L. Dechesne, L’avènement du régime syndical à Verviers, Paris, 1908.
G. Des Marez, Le compagnonnage des chapeliers bruxellois, Brussels, 1909.
J. Fournier, Cahiers de doléances de la sénéchaussée de Marseille, Marseilles, 1908.
H. Hauser, Les compagnonnages d’arts et métiers de Dijon aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles
(Revue bourguignonne d’Enseignement supérieur, 1907).
Julien Hayem, La répression des grèves au XVIIIe siècle, (Mémoires sur l’Industrie et le
Commerce, vol. I).
Germain Martin, Les associations ouvrières au XVIIIe siècle, Paris, 1900.
J. M. Richard, La vie privée dans une province de l’Ouest, Lavai aux XVIIe et XVIIIe
siècles, Paris, 1922.
M. Rouff, Tubeuf, un grand industriel français au XVIIIe siècle, Paris, 1922.
E. Tarlé, La classe ouvrière en France pendant la Révolution, written in Russian (summarized in French by Karéiev, Révolution française, 1912, vol. 62). J. J. vernier, Cahiers
de doléances du bailliage de Troyes, 1909 (Collection does Documents économiques
de la Revolution).
Chapter 10: The Financiers
The class of financiers comprised two great groups, the bankers and the officers of
finance who had something to do with the management of the royal finances.
The Bankers
The bankers and business men played only a secondary rôle at this time. The bank of
Lyons, very important in the sixteenth century, had lost most of its old prestige. At Paris
the number of bankers increased during the eighteenth century, especially in the second
half of the century, but they were more interested in making loans to the state than they
were in industrial and commercial affairs. Exchange was still one of their most important
functions. They received Spanish American piasters in great quantities, as a result of the
trade in Cadiz, and exchanged them for French currency. In the provinces there were
very few bankers. A city such as Angers had none at all in 1789. In Rennes there were
only two or three, due to the proximity to Saint-Malo and the silk trade, which in Brittany
led to considerable commercial activity. Most banking transactions were carried on by
the financial officers or the merchants. We must mention also the important part played
by the Genevese in French banking. Among them were such men as Thelusson, Isaac
Vernet, Saladin, and Necker. The history of their activity still remains to be written.
The bankers of the court were particularly important. Among them were Jean Joseph
de la Borde, one of the most influential financiers of the period, who gave each of his two
daughters a dowry of a million, and Magon de la Balue, of the great shipping family of
Saint-Malo, who took part in all important transactions and became farmer general. Among
the great business men we should mention also Samuel Bernard, who profited particularly by the difficulties of the treasury at the end of the reign of Louis XIV. He was not
very scrupulous in his transactions, and in 1709 he failed with liabilities of 30 millions.
104 / Henri Sée
But early in the reign of Louis XV he was the most powerful financier. Only the Crozat
family could rival him. The family of Paris, descended from the son of a tavern keeper of
Moirans in Dauphiné, had made its fortune as a purveyor to the army. It was PârisDuverney who was entrusted with the liquidation of the system of Law. Although not
engaged in business during the ministry of Fleury (1726–1743), Pâris-Duverney and his
son, Paris de Mont-martel, remained during the reign of Louis XV the great capitalists
involved in all commercial and industrial transactions that required large sums. Among
the business men, the traitants and partisans, who collected the various royal taxes,
often made enormous profits. This explains their unpopularity.
The Financial Officers
But the officers of the royal finances had a place quite as important as that of the men of
business. They were very numerous. Each generality had two alternating receivers general and at each election a special receiver. Then came the officers of the various financial
bureaus. Thus in a city like Rennes, in the middle of the eighteenth century, the capitation
rolls mention beside the treasurer general of the Estates of Brittany a receiver of the
domains, a receiver of the town dues, a controller of the waters and forests, two receivers of the fuages, a receiver for the executions of real property, a farm agent, a treasurer
for wars, a director of food supplies, a director of the treasury, a director and an assayer
of the mint, a receiver for tobacco, a director and a general cashier for debts, and officiers
du contrôle (a director and traveling agents). All these officers, who had high quotas of
the capitation at their disposal, enjoyed very great prosperity. In Brittany there were no
officers for the gabel as yet.
The Farmers General
In the first rank of the financiers were the farmers general. Their importance becomes
clear if we consider that everything which we call indirect taxes depended upon the
general farm. Among these taxes were those on aids, registrations, the domain, drafts, the
gabel and the tobacco tax. Every six years the lease of these revenues was allotted to an
individual for a certain sum. As warrantors he had financiers who were incorrectly known
as farmers general, to the number of forty. Each one paid security, which amounted at
first to a million, and then to 1,560,000 livres beginning with the year 1768. The interest
on this security was 10 per cent, and in addition there was an indemnity fixed at 30,000
livres. The gradual rise in the cost of the leases shows how they increased in value. In
1726 they brought 80 million; in 1744, 92; in 1756, no; in 1768, 132; in 1774, 152. In 1780
Necker took the aids away from the general farm and placed them under special control.
He took away also the domains, which were entrusted to a “general administration.” Yet
the last lease, that of 1786, reached the sum of 150 million nevertheless. The abuses
which were attributed to the general farm were aggravated by the croupes, that is the
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 105
quotas of interest paid to persons who had helped to furnish the sureties for the farmers
general, or who had helped a certain financier get a position as farmer general. Nor can
we overlook the abuses to which the collection of the farmed taxes led, but these abuses
were alleviated toward the end of the ancien regime. Hence it is not necessary to believe
literally what the pamphleteers, such as Darigrand, the author of the “Anti-financier”
(1763), or Mirabeau say.
Certain farmers general were severely reproached for their humble extraction. To be
sure, we find among them, particularly in the early part of the century, men who had
started life as menials, as for example Teissier and La Bouexière. But most of them had
begun as financial agents. This was the case with Bouret, receiver general of la Rochelle,
and then treasurer general of the household of the king. One of his colleagues had been
receiver general at Tours. Grimod de la Reynière had a father who had been a financier.
Dupin was the son of a receiver of the taille, and his fortune was due to his marriage with
a natural daughter of Samuel Bernard. Lallemand de Retz, Live de Bellegarde and
d’Arnoncourt, farmers general in 1726, were members of well situated families. Some
were even members of the legal nobility, as d’Arconville and d’Angray de Vallerand.
It cannot be denied that many of them had enormous fortunes. Bouret was credited
with having an income of 1,500,000 livres, and Thoynard, in 1753, left 19 millions to his
sons, who lost no time in squandering their patrimony. The farmers general became
notorious also for their pompous display. At Paris they built splendid mansions; among
these was the house of Samuel Bernard, the interesting remains of which are still preserved in the Musée André. In the country they had superb residences, not to mention the
“small houses” or folies in the suburbs. In the immediate vicinity of Paris, in Passy,
Auteuil, Vanves, Ivry, Puteaux and Neuilly, the rich financiers had splendid country homes.
They had the richest furnishings and the works of art that revealed the best taste. The
most skilled artisans and artists were in their employ. The memoirs and correspondence
of the time reveal also the fact that the financiers squandered much money foolishly upon
their mistresses and upon actresses and operatic singers.
Social Rôle of the Financiers
The financiers no doubt contributed to the splendor of Parisian life during the eighteenth
century. Rousseau, the friend of simple customs, was particularly struck by this. In the
“Nouvelle Héloise” he shows that the arts were practised only in the interest of this
wealthy class. The dramatic authors, such as Molière, did not deal with the common
people. They depicted only those who “have a carriage, a porter and a steward.”
But Rousseau was a friend, a habitué and a guest at the Ermitage of Madame d’Épinay,
whose house was open to men of letters. Voltaire too had dealings with financiers, notably with La Popelinière, the lavish and enlightened patron of the arts. Need we recall that
Helvétius in his salon and at his table gathered all the distinguished writers and illustrious
106 / Henri Sée
thinkers of Paris?
As a matter of fact, these financiers wished to play the rôle of Maecenases. In order
to beautify their homes they appealed to the artists, painters and sculptors. The farmers
general subscribed to superb editions of the Contes and Fables of La Fontaine. These
editions of the farmers general are now very much sought by bibliophiles.
The New Generation of Farmers General
But beginning in 1755, a great change was noted in the personnel of the farmers general.
The frivolous class began to constitute only a slight minority, and the rough-hewn
Turcarets2 had quite disappeared. Numerous farmers general now distinguished themselves by their intelligence, honesty and knowledge of business. Examples are Jacques
Delahante, farmer general from 1765, and Paulze, the father-in-law of Lavoisier. Lavoisier
himself early became noted for his expertness in the field of economics. He devoted a
good part of his fortune to researches in chemistry. He was always generous and unprejudiced, and a credit to French science. The fame of Benjamin de la Borde was not so
great, but he was distinguished as a musician, an artist and a littérateur. In short, we may
well subscribe to the opinion of Mollien when he declares:
“The great majority of the farmers of 1780, by their wit and their gentle manners,
took an honorable place in the first rank of French society, and some of them, by virtue
of the trend that their studies had taken, would have been disposed to serve their state
better if the ministers, with a more thorough knowledge of their cenutry, had better recognized the sources of the public wealth, had drawn from it more wisely, and had directed
it more skilfully toward its true goal.”
It is indeed true that the excessive taxes collected by the farmer general served to
make him unpopular. Thus the memorials of 1789 agree in demanding “the complete
abolition of the general farms, which contribute to the enrichment of only a few men,”
while ruining the people. And although we can not approve the merciless rigor which was
exercised, we can understand the trial and condemnation of 1793.
Works of Reference
Thirion, Vie privée des financiers au XVIII siècle, Paris, 1895.
Delahante, Une famille de finance au XVIIIe siècle, 1881.
Cucuel, La Popelinière, Paris, 1913.
Saint-Simon, Mémoires, éd. A. de Boislisle, 37 vols, in 8°.
Grimaux, Lavoisier, 1888.
M Marion, Dictionnaire des institutions de la France aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles, Paris,
1923, sub. croupes, ferme générale and receveurs généraux.
Chapter 11: High and Middle Bourgeoisie
There was a whole class of the third estate whose existence depended less directly upon
the economic system. They were the lawyers, the physicians, and also the members of
the bourgeoisie who were thought of as “living as noblemen,” that is those who lived
from their income.
The Liberal Professions
Lawyers, attorneys, notaries and seignorial agents—all those engaged in the practise of
law—belonged to the same social class. In the first rank, especially in the parliamentary
cities, as Rennes or Dijon, were the advocates and attorneys. At Rennes the attorneys in
the parliament, to the number of 80, were often very well off. The advocates, who were
still more numerous, were as a whole less affluent, but a certain number of them, enjoying
a great reputation, had an important place in the city. This explains the important rôle
played in 1789 by men such as Le Chapelier, Lanjuinais, Glezen, etc. The attorneys of the
presidial seats, and principally the notaries, were not nearly so well situated as the advocates. The office of notary in a large city brought scarcely more than 16,000 livres, while
in the rural sections it was not worth more than 3,000. As for the judges of the royal seats
(the bailiwicks and seneschals’ districts) or of the seignorial seats, they were very numerous in all parts of France. Although many of them had the title of advocate, they formed
a class that was much less prosperous than the advocates and attorneys of the parliamentary cities.
In general the members of the other free professions were much more unfavorably
situated than the members of the legal profession. But in the larger cities the physicians
seemed to enjoy much comfort, and especially at the end of the ancien régime they had
considerable prestige. Bagot of Saint Brieuc was mayor of the city and later became a
108 / Henri Sée
deputy to the legislative assembly. Then there were the famous physicians of Paris, such
as Vicq d’Azyr, Guillotin and Tronchin. The surgeons were far more numerous. For a
long time confused with the tradesmen, they were, during the second half of the eighteenth century, regarded as being engaged in a liberal profession. They were at that time
put through a rigid course of study.
Professors were much less numerous and enjoyed considerably less prestige than
they do in our day. Moreover, the professors of law and medicine were first of all advocates and physicians. The faculties of letters and arts corresponded to our present secondary school teachers. An exception was to be found in the Collège de France. The
colleges were almost entirely in the hands of the churchmen, particularly up to the time of
the expulsion of the Jesuits (1762). In most of the cities, too, teachers of Latin or mathematics were rarely found, and they were generally very poor. The school teachers of
both sexes were often very numerous, but lived in extremely humble circumstances and
could not be regarded as belonging to the bourgeoisie at all. The same may be said of
teachers of music, dancing and fencing.
Bourgeoisie Living as Noblemen
In the cities, and particularly in the important cities, we find many members of the bourgeoisie who lived from their income, or, as the expression went, “lived as noblemen.”
The conditions of this class varied considerably. Some were very rich, while others had
only very meagre resources. They did not by any means all have the same origin. Some
were merchants who had become rich and had retired. This was the course of development in the case of many members of the bourgeoisie. Others had been in the legal
profession. Others again owned real estate. There were also many older unmarried women
and widows. Besnard in his “Souvenirs” declares that people retired of their own free
will when they had accumulated an estate insuring them an income of between 3000 and
4000 livres.
This class of retired bourgeois who “lived as noblemen” constitutes one of the
characteristics of French society in the eighteenth century. The wealthy families had a
tendency to retire and shunned work. Thus, in a city such as Saint-Malo we find many
bourgeois “living like noblemen.” They belonged to merchant families. In England this
tendency hardly existed. The sons of rich English citizens and of gentlemen did not
hesitate to work and to engage in business. This contrast is interesting, especially when
we note that it existed at a time when primogeniture was in vogue in France as well as in
England.
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 109
The New Nobility and the Urban Patriciate
In all the cities we find a sort of urban patriciate. It included a certain number of families
that had hereditary possession of municipal positions. Their members frequently belonged to the new nobility, for these positions brought with them the rank of nobility. To
these were added those persons who secured nobility by virtue of juridical positions.
Almost everywhere, too, we note a rivalry between the families that formed the high
bourgeoisie, and the middle and low bourgeoisie (advocates, physicians, merchants,
artisans, etc.).
At the time of the convocation of the States General most of the cities witnessed
serious struggles between these two elements of the bourgeoisie, and we notice that the
third estate wished to exclude from the right of representing it in the assembly those who
were designated as anoblis.
We should consider also that the more comfortably situated bourgeois often had
more or less considerable landed property in the rural sections, with farms and country
homes. This was frequent near the cities, and often the bourgeois owners added to their
names the name of one of their estates. They were “sieurs de.” But this designation was
by no means equivalent to the title of nobility.
The Mode of Life
But the high bourgeoisie constituted only a small minority. The bourgeoisie as a whole
led a very simple life, as can be seen by the inventories made after death, and by some
memoirs.
The “Souvenirs d’un nonagénaire,” written by an Angevin, François Yves Besnard,
show us in great detail the mode of life of lawyers and seignorial agents in the small cities.
Besnard has described for us the house of his great-grandmother, the widow of a notary.
In the ground floor was a large room which served at the same time as a kitchen; a dining
room and a sleeping room, with two beds. Beside this there was a smaller room without
a fireplace, which contained a single bed, two closets and a few chairs. For receptions
there was a large hall with a wardrobe and some armchairs. This room too contained a
bed. In the second floor there was a room with two beds, and an attic.
Even in the large cities, such as Angers, most of the houses of the bourgeoisie had
neither hangings nor rich furnishings. The huge fireplaces had no ornaments of any kind,
no vases, porcelain or clocks. The silver rarely consisted of more than a dozen covers
and a few goblets. There were plates and dishes of terra cotta or of coarse crockery.
There was only one servant. To be sure, almost everyone had rich stores of linen, often
coarse but usually substantial. The cloth was manufactured by rural artisans.
“All bourgeois families eat in their kitchens,” we are informed. There were four meals
a day. Breakfast was eaten between seven and eight. The dinner, at eleven or at noon,
consisted of a soup or boiled beef. At four o’clock there was a lunch, and in the evening
110 / Henri Sée
a supper with a roast and a salad. Of course, when guests were invited, the meal was
more elaborate. There were meat-pies, roasts, salads, and some vegetables.
There was also little luxury in clothing. The wardrobe comprised garments for summer and winter. Wedding and gala garments passed, as they still do among the peasants
of Lower Brittany, from generation to generation. “Top-knots or ribbons of gay colors”
and flounces, we are informed by the “Souvenirs d’un nonagénaire,” were worn only by
women of the nobility or of the high bourgeoisie. They were never seen on wives of
notaries, surgeons or shopkeepers.
Moreover, the dowry given to a daughter rarely exceeded 6000 livres. “A dowry of
10,000 or 15,000 francs presupposed vast estates or great commercial prosperity,” even
in cities such as Angers. It was only among the high bourgeoisie (wholesale merchants,
financiers, and wealthy lawyers) that the mode of life changed during the second half of
the eighteenth century. Thus, in cities like Rennes or Laval, new residences were built, or
the old ones were furnished more comfortably. It became customary to have salons and
dining rooms, and more than one room was heated. But even in Paris, we are told by
Besnard, the middle and low bourgeoisie lived very simply. Luxury was restricted to the
nobility, the financiers and the great merchants.
Intellectual Culture
The bourgeoisie, particularly the lawyers, were at times very cultured. This is indicated
by the inventories of private libraries that have come down to us. The old stock of the
municipal library of Rennes consists in great part of the library of the advocates of
Rennes. It contains the best works that appeared in the eighteenth century, and particularly most of the “philosophical” writings. The works on law, written by the advocates,
were often outstanding and revealed a profound knowledge of all questions of administration; many of them too are distinguished by their lucid exposition. Arthur Young,
traveling in France shortly before the outbreak of the Revolution, was struck by the great
intellect of some women belonging to the bourgeoisie. He was impressed in particular by
a Madame Picardet of Dijon, whom he called “a treasure for Guyton de Morveau (the
celebrated chemist), for she is able and eager to converse with him on subjects of chemistry, as well as on others, whether they be pleasing or instructive.” Women like Madame
Roland were not very rare in bourgeois society at the end of the eighteenth century.
Revolutionary Sentiments of the Bourgeoisie
The bourgeoisie, especially the high bourgeoisie, was a relatively privileged class, for it
was in general exempt from the taille, and a great number of positions were open to it.
But it was excluded from many offices, and, since the edict of 1781, particularly from the
army. The bourgeoisie could not hold the great administrative offices, which it felt more
capable of filling than the nobility. Hence the bourgeois were often wounded in their pride
Economic and Social Conditions in France During the Eighteenth Century / 111
and self-respect. All these grievances of the bourgeoisie were forcefully set forth by a
nobleman, the Marquis de Bouille, in his “Mémoires”:
“Generally the bourgeois had received an education, which they needed more than
the nobles; some of whom, by virtue of birth and wealth, secured high state offices
without merit or efficiency, while others were destined to languish in subordinate army
positions. Thus, at Paris and in the other large cities, the bourgeoisie was superior to the
nobility in wealth, ability and personal merit. In the provincial cities it was similarly superior to the rural nobility. The bourgeois. were conscious of this superiority, but they were
everywhere humiliated, and they were excluded by military regulations from positions in
the army. They were also excluded in a sense from the high clergy, because the bishops
were chosen from among the high nobility, and the curates generally also.... High positions on the bench were also closed to them, and most of the sovereign courts admitted
only nobles. Finally it was necessary to prove nobility even in order to be admitted to the
position of maître des requêtes.”
It is clear then that in 1789, as is proved by the memorials of the States General, it
was the entire third estate that rose to demand the abolition of the privileges enjoyed by
the aristocracy, the admission of all men to all positions, and, in the rural sections, the
destruction of the manorial system. The latter demand was added to the program of the
bourgeoisie at the insistence of the peasants, or at least in order to win them over to the
cause of the urban third estate. No doubt neither the bourgeoisie nor the rural population
formed a clearly delimited class. They were divided into many distinct categories, often
with opposing interests. Moreover, while the first and second estates tried to safeguard a
community of interests, without feeling any real solidarity, the non-privileged classes, on
the other hand, realized that they all had the same demands against the privileged classes,
and the same abuses to combat. That is the reason why the lower classes, forming a bloc
against the upper classes, came to feel that they truly represented the nation.
It has been contended not without reason that many of the nobility were descended
from the third estate, that there was a slow accession from the popular classes to the
nobility, and that the high bourgeoisie bordered directly upon the nobility. But this was of
little avail to the bourgeoisie of the eighteenth century, especially since the various social
classes developed more and more into closed castes. Then too, only a slight minority of
the third estate rose to the nobility. The observations of Mireur are especially interesting
for anyone who is studying the sources of the nobility, but they do not prove that the
third estate had no good reasons for assailing the privileges of the nobility.
The most active elements of the third estate were those engaged in the practise of
law, for they were impelled not only by their class interests, but also by the new ideas that
excited their enthusiasm. No doubt the class of merchants and the leaders in industry and
business, who were enterprising innovators and hostile to regulations and juridical privileges that opposed their own privileges, helped to undermine the ancien régime. But in
112 / Henri Sée
1788–1789 the men engaged in the practise of law played the leading rôle, conducted the
campaign of the third estate and drew up the majority of the memorials.
Works of Reference
E. Lavisse, Histoire de France, vol. IX.
Celestin Port, Les Souvenirs d’un nonagénaire, Mémoires de François-Yves Bcsnard,
Angers, 1880, 2 vols.
Monin, État de Paris en 1789 (Collection des Documents relatifs à l’histoire de la ville
de Paris), Paris, 1889.
Arthur Young, Travels in France, publ. by Betham Edwards, translated into French by
Lesage, 2nd ed., 1882.
Babeau, La ville sous l’Ancien Régime, Paris, 1884.
Bussière, La Révolution en Périgord. Vol. I: La bourgeoisie péri gourd ine au XVIIIe
siècle, 1877.
H. Sée, La vie économique et les classes sociales en France au XVIIIe siècle, Paris,
1924.
Mireur, Le tiers état à Draguignan.